










/ 


COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 








\ 



































. 

















































. ■ 















































































tie 

iHualVtics 

of 

Ctiwvcfi (Sowrnmcnf 

X X X 

—BY— 

Rev* Robert Sdoocbvard Barmvell 

XXX 

PETERSBURG, VA. 

THE FRANKLIN PRESS COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS 

I907 













LIBRARY of CONGRESS 
Two Copies Received 

JIJN 19 190/ 

/^Coovnirht Entry 

yu'njt / c f>t € ?6'i 

/<£aSS Cl XXc., No, 

/ 7?7 76 

COPY B. 


3 Ye So 

33 











TO MY AUNT 


ESTHER HUTSON BARNWELL 
WHOSE 

HIGH IDEALS OF MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL LIFE 
AND 

INDOMITABLE SPIRIT OF SELF-SACRIFICE 
SECURED FOR ME 
IMMEASURABLE BLESSINGS 
THIS EFFORT 
OF 

HEART AND MIND 
IS DEDICATED 
WITH 

ALL AFFECTION AND ESTEEM 



(Table of Contents 


part I. Underlying principles and Considerations 

Chapter I. Grace and Faith 13 

Chapter II. Authority and Consent 34 

Chapter III. Grace in Authority; Faith in 

Consent 46 

Chapter IV. Ministerial Office and the Ap¬ 
portionment of Functions - 60 

Chapter V. Official Authority by Law that 

is Known 74 

Chapter VI. Various Considerations of Im¬ 
portance 82 

1. Scripture and History - 82 

2. Essentials and Non-Essen¬ 

tials - - - - 92 

3. Vision, Evidence and Proof 97 
Chapter VII. Historic Types of Government 99 

Part IX* evidence and Structure 

Chapter I. The Master’s Own Acts - - 117 

Chapter II. Apostolical Acts - - - 137 

Chapter III. Discussion of Differences be¬ 
tween Apostles and Elders 152 
Chapter IV. Discussion of the Special Order 171 
Chapter V. Discussion of the Biblical Sys¬ 
tem in Extenso - 192 

Chapter VI. The Special Order in History - 210 

Chapter VII. Discussion of the Historical 

System in Extenso - - 225 

part III* Bearings and Deductions 

Chapter I. Discussion of Modern Systems 247 
Chapter II. Discussion of Modern Systems, 

Continued - 265 

Chapter III. The Problem of Unity - - 285 




preface 


The quality of suggestiveness is all that I dare claim for 
the discussion herewith offered to those who care for new incur¬ 
sions into such old territory. The surety of conviction that blesses 
the author from the study of the subject is not, from the very 
nature of things, to be expected of others. It is enough if all 
along the line, which is a very extended one indeed, suggestions 
break into view which the reader can feel glad to receive. Analysis 
has just that very advantage—it is stimulating by reason of the 
many avenues it opens, and things are seen in relation. But 
while the only assurance of interest that I venture to give is in 
the line of suggestiveness, yet I must confess that the motive 
lying behind all my effort is zeal for a truth. I have not simply 
tried to write a book, nor have I thrust into an always burning 
discussion in order to exploit a view. My desire has been to re-for- 
tify an old citadel by a most thorough-going circumvallation, try¬ 
ing to leave no approach unguarded, and especially to make all 
secure against a flanking or an undermining attack. I shall not 
succeed in this extensive desire, of course, but this confession 
will explain somewhat the extent of the foundations I seek to lay, 
and the pains taken over outlying bastions. Twenty years of 
thought and purpose, and unsatisfactory writing, have culminated 
in this effort. If I fail, I will face it humbly; if I succeed, even 
a little, I will rejoice. 

R. W. Barnwell. 

St. Paul's Rectory, Petersburg, Va. 


Untrobuctton 


The great difficulty that attends all discussion of the matter 
of ecclesiastical government is the paucity of definite facts. When 
every possible quotation from Scripture and the history of the 
first one hundred and fifty years that gives a statement of facts 
is collected, the mass remains extremely small. In the early years, 
when the Church first established her forms, there was ample evi¬ 
dence to guide, but the establishment being accomplished, and 
the lapsing of centuries coming on, we are left with very meagre 
data to go upon, if we undertake to question that early settlement. 
Ordinarily, the actual conditions seen not many decades after the 
death of the last apostle would be taken to fairly represent an 
earlier condition as well, but the controversies of modern times 
will not allow such a mode of settlement, and even the giving to 
such a condition any force whatever is questioned. We are there¬ 
fore compelled, in order to satisfy minds we would fain influence, 
to try to let the settlement of the momentous matter be viewed 
in the light of only such facts as we can find expressed in Scrip¬ 
ture, and the earliest records of the historical period. Besides, 
too, in addition to being few, the facts are also very general in 
character as a rule—enough to connect an established condition 
with a past, but hardly definite enough for a new building. 

But there is a background for facts, as well as the facts them¬ 
selves, that enters in as an important factor. Some background 
will be placed behind the facts by every mind, and therefore, it 
is necessary to discuss backgrounds as well as facts. In the light 
of the paucity and general nature of the facts, the nature of the 
background becomes a more weighty element in the discussion; 
for this background can well depend on principles much more 
closely set forth than the facts which happen to be at our dis¬ 
posal. At any rate, the proper background is an essential element, 
and only after having clear conceptions of both this and the facts 
will we be able to form our convictions. 

To get at this proper background we must remember that 
Church Government lies in the spheres of Beligion, of Govern- 


Introduction 


9 


ment, of Ministry and of History. I have conceived as necessary 
to adequate consideration, that in the sphere of Religion, there 
must be an analysis made of the forces and lines of Grace, and 
Faith; in that of Government, we must understand the principles 
and the forms of government, and of ecclesiastical government; 
in that of Ministry, the forms and functions; while in the sphere 
of History, come the origins and developments of Systems, and 
the status of conditions at the time of the Church’s birth, in 
those matters bearing on the new departure about to be inaugu¬ 
rated. The Church came in the middle of time, and was a product 
as well as a new beginning, and just to be able to draw our lines 
between the old and the new,—just to see what use was made of 
old things in the formative stage of growth, is a gain. 

But certain acts of our Lord are much plainer than some 
acts of the Apostles, and it is part of the plan I design to follow, 
to place those acts against the background derived from study of 
the above matters, and by means of thus gaining a new Back¬ 
ground to test the remaining facts. By careful analysis, verified 
by the test made by means of our Lord’s acts, a background might 
be gained, against which, what facts we have given in the Acts 
and the Epistles of the Apostles will become more luminous. 

At any rate, whether proof appear or not, as the result of 
all our labors, it cannot but be, that such analysis as will be en¬ 
tered into will be of benefit to the cause of investigation along 
lines of Ecclesiastical Polity. 

I almost wfish it had been possible to omit the first chapter, 
for the reason that the analysis of Grace and Faith is one that 
must go so deep into Theological Anthropology that it makes that 
chapter seem a thing apart from the rest of the book, which is 
far simpler and plainer, but there was literally no help for that 
effort to ground the foundations of the doctrine of the Grace 
of Orders aright. The more near to the very bed-rock we could 
approach, the better; for my whole conception of Authority was 
to be built upon it, and that conception of Authority would run 
through everything. If the reader is thrown out of the furrow 
of inclination by this first chapter, let him skip it until such time 
as the need of it is made plain by assumptions based upon it. 
Then, if unwilling to grant those assumptions, there will be no 


10 


Analytics of Church Government 


help but to wade through the intricacies of that opening chapter. 
But I am convinced that only by viewing Grace as both of the 
Holy Ghost and of Christ, and distinguishing between the two 
operations, and by recognizing the distinctions of Personality 
and Nature in the whole man, can the true basis of God’s part 
in the Church be made plain. 

No appeal is made to authorities because the effort is made 
to avoid staking anything on opinions. The argument is one by 
analysis, not scholarship. The position ought to appear founded, 
not buttressed. 

So, too, I have not attached notes or appendices, for I wanted 
the whole to resemble a straight away sail from open sea to port, 
not a coasting voyage, with excursions into all kinds of creeks 
and bays. No one confesses the power of the scholar’s form of 
presenting thought more, but it was set aside for the simpler 
method. It is hoped that some little scholarship will be apparent, 
even though not attested; but let the truth be told,—the French¬ 
man’s love of Ideas, and the German’s love of Abstractions appeal 
to the author more strongly than the Englishman’s love of Quota¬ 
tions—quotations, for the most part, as we know, from the Ideal¬ 
ists and Abstractionists of other times. 

The book is divided into three parts because the subject of 
Church Government always involves both a discussion of evidence 
and a discussion of general principles, and these two require each 
a distinct manner of treatment (which probably also causes a dis¬ 
tinct style); while for the sake of order and clearness the last 
three chapters relating to deductions are also classed in a separate 
part. 

Only a few friends have read the manuscript, and upon only 
one did I impose the task of criticism—the Rev. Prof. W. A. 
Guerry, of the University of the South. To him I acknowledge 
here a large debt, though still falling short of meeting his sug¬ 
gestions. I went as far as I dared, but probably should have 
dared more. 


part II 

Tfln&erl^ins principles 
and 

Considerations 



CHAPTER I 


(Brace anb jfaitb 

There is in the Bible a simple text, which commends itself 
to readers of every school of theology, and yet which no school 
of theology, from the very fact that it is a school, a party only, 
has ever taken to its thought. Even more, the very broadest divi¬ 
sions in orthodox Christianity are, with very simple analysis, 
traced up to different understandings of the accent which is to 
be placed, now on the word “Grace, ” and now on the word “Faith / 1 
in that famous passage of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 
“For by Grace are ye saved through Faith.” Rome, for the very 
life of her, cannot forbear so to accent “Grace,” that Protestant¬ 
ism must of very necessity quarrel with her; and, on the other 
hand, the assertions of Protestantism in the line of “Faith” have 
drawn unqualified anathemas from Rome. Even when some particu - 
lar Branch of the Church braces itself for desperate effort to hold 
equally to the truth of both, it will soon be found split into sec¬ 
tions, leaning, one to one side, another to the other, and growing as 
violent in charges and counter-charges as the larger divisions of 
the Christian world. Every school is willing to come back to the 
text, assert it broadly, strongly, defiantly, preach from it to sin¬ 
ners of the other side, and vehemently declare their own right 
thinking and fair doing. Nevertheless, the line of cleavage is 
along the line of accent, and even if no one can just exactly de¬ 
termine the true balance, yet the unbalanced condition of all 
schools is too patent to need description. 

If any one should attempt for himself the task of keeping 
full and true the balance, he would, as with many turnings he 
proceeds, inevitably be reminded of the Church’s efforts in early 
times correctly to define the Divinity and Humanity of the God- 
man with due regard to each. Again, in another line, he would 
recognize the immensity of the task of so conceiving humanity, 
that Personality and Nature would neither give nor lose to each 
other functions nor spheres. Still again, he would be driven to 
attempt to so analyse the work of Christ in the world, that he 


14 


Analytics of Church Government 


could assign now to His Divinity, and now to His Humanity re¬ 
spective grace, as it is variously adapted to particular work. As, 
for instance, in the question,—When He raises man from death, 
is it by means of working in man by a risen Humanity, or upon 
man by a rescuing Divinity? Surely, the task of theology to the 
end of time will be the balancing of “Grace” and “Faith/’ Con¬ 
sequently, no man, and no body of the baptized, at the present time, 
must be inordinately blamed for weighting the balance. It is 
not only human to err, but it is error’s own field, this theological 
stretch of almost uncharted country. 

The very forces of Nature, too, in the realm of mind, necessi¬ 
tate warfare on these lines. The tendencies of men are, both 
according to the age-spirit and the individual propensities, prone, 
either to quiescent reliance on help, or to active energies of achiev¬ 
ing. Some prefer to let others even do their thinking for them; 
others will barely tolerate aid of any kind. The very Faith of 
some is exercised only so far as to accept; that of others reaches 
out eagerly to obtain—almost seize. When the Church of Rome 
developed her system, men demanded, and she gave to them in 
accordance with a world condition of darkness and lack of vision; 
but when the roots of Protestant systems struck into the soil, 
light had come, and the plant lifted up its head to a sun burst¬ 
ing through the clouds. The philosophy of human nature almost 
explains, why, in one age, it was the Grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and in another, the Fellowship of the Holy Ghost, with 
all the implication of co-operating Faith, that most impressed 
the children struggling to deserve the love of God. 

But now, in the following treatise on the analysis of Church 
Government, so much depends on a fair recognition of principles 
springing from Grace and Faith, that, although we may well par¬ 
don, in the past, and for the future, a reasonably limited one-sided¬ 
ness, yet, if we are to accomplish our aim, we must not ourselves 
commit the fault which we have insisted is so natural as to be 
almost unavoidable. 

The task of strict analysis would be, indeed, hopeless, at 
this stage of the world, if we had certain subjects to deal with. 
Fortunately, for the purpose of Church Government, we have 
the larger outlines only to distinguish and combine; and for this 


Grace and Faith 


15 


purpose, the stage of theological analysis to which the religious 
world has already attained, possibly suffices. 

All efforts to solve from the Scriptures the Divine mind upon 
the subject of Church Government are, perhaps, most deeply of all, 
prejudiced by the Protestant or Roman accent on “Grace” or 
“Faith.” Men take with them in germ the idea they wish to 
evolve in terms. The most conservative of them are as guilty 
as the radical. It is inevitable. One cannot discuss the subject 
at all without the bias derived from one’s accent on “Grace” or 
“Faith.” The only h£pe of fairness is, that the analysis of 
“Grace” and “Faith” be first made and shown, so that the inner 
logic of mind may be judged as well as the outer logic of word. 
Even though one should try to hold no brief for any theory or 
system, but rigidly to analyse as far as the subject goes, yet be¬ 
cause the subject is approached, it is necessary to fairness, that 
whatever bias be carried into it should be known. 

Views about “Grace” and “Faith” are unquestionably in¬ 
volved. There has never been a discussion about the Ministry 
but what there has been an inevitable drift to the point where 
it was seen that each side leaned to his interpretation of Biblical 
facts or statements in consequence of views about Grace and 
Faith. For instance, upon what principle is a Church member 
under Authority? Does Faith attract him there, and then per¬ 
suasively keep him there? Or, does Grace put him there, and 
bmd him there? Is he free to come and go, or is he helpless to 
validly break away? When a Protestant changes from one body 
to another, he feels, as a rule, that he has a perfect right, but 
a member of the Church of Rome is brought up to believe such a 
change is a terrible sacrilege. To one a change of Faith is conclu¬ 
sive; to the other, where Grace has placed him, there he must 
stay. Now, if the Ministry be a product of the Church’s mind, 
and if it be a proper subject for adjustment, the right to change 
might be clear; but if the Church can no more change its Min¬ 
istry than it can its Sacraments, and a person baptized is under 
officers as children are under parents, it is easy to see how a 
change must mean a most momentous step. The Grace of Orders 
has been an issue for centuries, and while the scope of that idea 
brings chiefly into view a doctrine of help, it bears directly upon 


16 


Analytics of Church Government 


such questions as a change of membership very fully. Indeed there 
is no escape for any one attempting an analysis of Church Gov¬ 
ernment from going deeply into the subject of Grace and Faith, 
their relative place and workings. Even though such analysis 
be sure to make the chapter devoted to it markedly different from 
every other, both far more complex and, sad to say, dryer, yet 
manifestly it would be a vast mistake to omit such analysis and 
thus leave a fundamental out of consideration. In fact, while 
a discussion of underlying Grace may make dull reading for 
some, and to others resemble a running start of tiring length, yet 
to scholars who know the importance of it, no apologies need be 
urged. 

Faith is so marvellous that often things are attributed to it 
that are really out of its sphere, and it is the object of this discus¬ 
sion to present the scope of Faith. Then, too, Grace is such an 
indefinite term that it is necessary to discuss just what we mean 
by Grace. So there must be sought some good starting point 
from which to make this plain. 

Grace is God’s help to humanity but it may come either 
from Christ or from the Holy Spirit, and each of these kinds 
must differ. Again, it may be given to man either in his soul, or 
in his body—(let us remember Christ’s resurrection of our bodies). 
An analysis of Grace must pass through these fields therefore, and 
probably the very best starting point would be to look first at the 
present-day scientific discrimination between soul and body, and 
then adjust our analysis of the workings of Grace to our conclu¬ 
sions. We cannot ignore what Science says about the body; and 
its late conclusions as to the extent to which all our thought and 
feeling can be traced to mere mechanism compels the Christian 
to consider what room is left for the soul. We cannot contra¬ 
dict what Science has found out about the body and brain-mechan¬ 
ism. We can only hope to get our bearings properly by consid¬ 
ering Grace in connection with them. But all the science as to 
body cannot destroy man’s convictions as to the existence of a 
soul. They call it Personality now—"Mechanism” and "Person¬ 
ality.” There is and needs must be a Person. So then our dis¬ 
cussion must include a recognition of these modern positions. 


Grace and Faith 


17 


They are so well known that the briefest statement will suffice, 
which is here given, as follows: 

Little by little, material scientists have been claiming the 
powers of man as but the functions of the mechanism of his physi¬ 
cal being. The senses stimulate nerves, the nerves the brain 
cells, molecular changes take place, the tides of blood flow and 
ebb around the changed tissue, and thus are explained the mental, 
moral and even spiritual processes of man for all his life. Yet 
most confidently can it be asserted that there is something in 
the being man that mechanism cannot explain. An interpreter of 
signs, molecular changes, blood torrents, mechanical forces and 
pressures; a determiner of action; a projector of future mechanical 
signs, changes, torrents and pressures—the Personality must and 
does exist. The metaphysicians’ claims are as strong, on the 
side of Person, as the scientists on the side of mechanism. 

Seeing then, that man is thus a Person with a mechanism, 
(and let us say, since we are Christians, that, if this mechanism 
of matter die there is another mechanism, one of spirit, that can¬ 
not die, which the Personality can and will assume), let us briefly 
discuss, so far as suits our purpose, the Energies of the Person¬ 
ality and the Energies of the Nature. 

First. There must of necessity be an energy of the Person. 
For, when a man lifts a hundred-pound weight, muscular contrac¬ 
tion expresses just that much power; and the power that con¬ 
tracts the muscles is also so measured. (No account is here taken 
of mechanical aids.) We finally get to the will, still carrying our 
supply of force; and the will must get its energy from the Per¬ 
sonality, in ultimate analysis. Energy must be attributed to the 
soul, therefore. Only when we come there can we halt. 

But, now arises the question, does the Personality possess 
different kinds of energy, such as that of thought, feeling and 
will, or let us say, too, of faith, love, hope, etc.? It would seem 
not. It really appears, in the light of mehanical science, that the 
energy of the soul passes through the mechanism in different di¬ 
rections, and as that energy turns, or is turned towards different 
objects through the appropriate channels, it becomes memory, 
fancy or reason, hope, love or faith, muscular, mental or moral 
power. Thus, with muscular power, the energy of the soul is 


18 


Analytics of Church Government 


the ultimate power, and the modifiers are those peculiarities of 
will, nerve and muscle, that come from the mechanism of the 
man. There is a memory department of the brain, and it would 
seem, a department for every part of man’s powers. Indeed Sci¬ 
ence will not allow any function to be without mechanism, and all 
the metaphysician can claim is, that there is a personality, and 
that energy is its attribute—energy enough to use and control the 
mechanism. Religion teaches us, conformably with this, that Per¬ 
sonality can possess either the earthly mechanism or the spiritual— 
aye, even more, that a certain Personality did possess a Human 
Mechanism and a Divine (Nature, we prefer to call it, in this 
instance); and that in consequence of the vast energy of His Di¬ 
vine Person, however, limited by the Human mechanism, and in 
consequence of the limitations of the Human Mechanism, however 
filled with Divine energy, the God-man presents the peculiar 
phases of His marvelous life on earth. 

Let us posit, then, as an essential element of our analysis, 
the conceptions of (a) Personality, as bare soul, (not necessarily 
altogether bare, but bare so far as not coming endowed with the 
qualities which are now seen as belonging to the mechanism, in 
opposition to former ideas on the subject) with energy; (b) Nature, 
as mechanism apportioning energy in all its complex relations to 
God and creation. Our conceptions of “Grace” and “Faith” must 
fit into these positions. 

We come now, to a narrowing of the position. In spite of 
the truth of the above statement, such powers of man as reason, 
will, faith, etc., have always been conceived as of the Personality 
itself. They may be called in fact personal faculties to distinguish 
them from more animal faculties, like appetites, etc., but still 
they are all of the mechanism and not of the Personality. En¬ 
ergy, the Personality must have, in order to use the mechanism, 
but only that which emerges from the mechanism can he dis¬ 
tinguished as fancy, or memory, or faith, or love, or nerve force, or 
muscular activity. The personal energy may be only the steam 
which drives the mill, as it were, or it may be more but the tides 
of blood must flow over the brain tissue in certain parts of the 
head, ere energy is seen as memory. Science may well ask— 
What would a soul without a mechanism be? Can the musician 


Grace and Faith 


19 


play without an organ of sound? Can the soul think and feel 
without organs of thought and feeling? Energy is not thought, 
or faith, or love until it emerges with the impress of some determin¬ 
ing mold—material mechanism, or spiritual mechanism, it mat¬ 
ters not which, just so we have something with the function of 
making energy into its diverse forms. 

Faith is the eye, hand and mouth of the soul—its receptive 
faculty. But, how? We must get clear conceptions of this im¬ 
portant point. Let us put it thus. Without a mechanism, the 
soul, notwithstanding all its energy, would stand helpless before 
a fact, or a person, but, by means of a mechanism, it can stand 
in relation to either; just as by means of a digestive mechanism, 
it can make a grain of wheat contribute to the souls abidance in 
the present body. All manner of ways has the soul, by means of 
its woundrous mechanism, the body, of dealing with its environ¬ 
ments. It can love a person, know a fact, conceive an idea, 
will a movement, read a sign and strike a blow. Again, given a 
person or a fact, it can have many ways of treating this person 
or that fact. Yet again, we find, that amid all the relations to 
a fact or person, a wound to the brain will destroy one relation 
(memory, for instance) and leave the rest. It is simply then, 
of the nature of the mechanism, that faculties exist for certain 
relations of the Personality to environment. It is, too, a simple 
fact, that, by means of a certain power of the mechanism, the 
soul can go out towards a person or a fact in a manner that is 
not love of the person, or knowledge of the fact but belief in 
either. And, now, because the movement towards the object 
is an incomplete relation, an unsatisfied tendency, we behold a 
great function as pertaining to the believing power of man. Go¬ 
ing before love and knowledge, and yearning for them as its 
own completion. Faith becomes a motive power, influencing the 
whole man. Some relation towards persons or facts there must 
be. Love is final, and so is knowledge. What is the beginning of 
relationship, but faith; and what the function of that relation¬ 
ship but to draw towards the end? 

It were useless here to inquire, why the Personality has such 


20 


Analytics of Church Government 


attractions for persons and facts, that it reveals a propensity to 
move towards or away from them, as surely as magnets exhibit 
similar qualities in their spheres. It is enough that the condi¬ 
tion is real. God and Truth are Personal necessities. Love 
and Knowledge are the consummations. Faith characterizes the 
process until the end is reached. Now every Personality has 
its initial energy, and its initial affinity for God and Truth. There 
is also the initial Nature to be considered. Finally, there are 
in all these the changes for better or worse that ensue upon the ini¬ 
tial stage. Therefore, we see the problem of Salvation is worked 
out with all these matters of affinity, energies and growth as fac¬ 
tors. But, since our law of Salvation is “By Grace, through 
Faith,” we must work the problem so as to find the value of these 
terms. 

In the matter of the soul’s affinity for God, any increase 
brought about by God’s nearer approach and clearer revelation 
(magnet like) is at once seen to belong to the province of Grace. 

Again, that the Personality should be able to grow in energy 
seems natural, and this too would be credited to Grace. 

Then, too, there is a field for Grace in the mechanism itself, 
since that can be, through weakness in one direction, a poor mold 
for Faith; or through strength in some other, a determiner to¬ 
wards antagonistic efforts. 

But, on the other hand, the Personality has control, more or 
less, over the mechanism, and is the seat of responsibility. The 
mechanism may have its tendencies, by reason of its variations, 
in different individuals, or, at different periods, in the same 
individual’s life and growth, according to its brain cells or nerves 
or flesh and blood, appetites, passions, affinities, etc.; but, there 
is an inalienable responsibility of the Personality, whether he 
laughs, talks, eats, sleeps, learns, works, believes or loves wisely 
or unwisely. Although he can not add a cubit to his stature, a 
man can yet gain a cubit through obedience to law, and by reason 
of Grace utilized. To seek the goal of his highest affinities is 
the acme of his responsibility, and, by controlling his mechanism 
Faithward, he can draw himself Loveward. Even though God 
Himself, with nearer and nearer approach stand before him, only 
by pouring his energy through his mechanism Faithward, can he 


Grace and Faith 


21 


draw near to God, so as to pour his energy through the same 
mechanism Loveward. (And the new mechanism, or mechan¬ 
isms*? after this life, is strangely interwoven with the present 
in all these ways). It ought to be observed of Faith, in this 
review, that, it can not bring God or Truth to the man, but it 
brings the man to God and Truth. Its power is on the Person¬ 
ality and Nature, but on nothing outside. Its power on the 
Nature is through the Personality and its control, conscious and 
unconscious, over the Nature. If unsatisfied, it reacts on the 
Personality, which is induced to exercise its energies in many 
directions, in order to fulfill the demands of belief. Faith can 
form nothing, and generate nothing. It can go out knowledge- 
ward and loveward, and return revealing what it has found of 
fact, or even fancy; and even as the Personality has its affinities, 
so this unsatisfied quest by Faith leads the soul on. 

But, is not another Nature—another mechanism in process 
of building all through the life of the Personality in the earthly? 
Is there not a spiritual Nature being formed? And is not the 
new logical to the Personality, in its growth or deterioration, in 
the old? If so, then we can see the influence of Faith on Per¬ 
sonality, and its constructive part in the new building. Faith 
then is in a sense formative after all, in that it finds its expression 
in the new building. Let Christ be the object of Faith, and the 
Personality will have Christ expressed in that spiritual Nature, 
which is in process of formation. But Faith can not be creative 
or generative. It is receptive and reproductive, but not crea¬ 
tive. Pre-existence is presumed in very terms. Perhaps the best 
presentation of the case would be this, that Faith is the assimila¬ 
tive faculty of the soul, as that soul in this life, like the caterpillar^ 
grows its mechanism for the next. But the process is, that it draws 
the Personality up to the selected truths, facts or standards, and 
in that strange new building the soul expresses itself in the new 
relations. We shall see more further on. 


If this be a fair setting forth of Faith, let us turn to see 
the province of Grace. 

* Note—Is the Soul disembodied utterly—i. e., without mechanism, between death and 
resurrection ? If not, is there yet another mechanism, or only the one spiritual one ? 



22 


Analytics of Church Government 


Grace may be described both as the Fellowship of the Holy 
Ghost, and as the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ; and in as 
much as man has both a Mechanism and a Personality, we must 
discuss both kinds of Grace in relation to both parts of man. 

The energy of the Personality is God-derived, and the Holy 
Ghost is, Himself, energy. Hence, the term, Fellowship, is emi¬ 
nently exact, for it expresses the idea that the Spirit can aid our 
spirit or energy by co-operation, and He be our Paraclete. So, 
too, He can enter into all energies and forces, this Lord and Giver 
of life, and in the realm of the mechanism find opportunity for 
Grace, or gifts of power, that soul-energy might now be love- 
molded, or Faith-molded, the better; or that the blood may flow 
to memory chambers, or the cells where noble ideals are stored. 
Being too the agent of Christ, He can apply the Grace of Christ 
according to the laws of our Personality and Nature. 

There is, therefore, no difficulty about the Grace of the Holy 
Ghost. The naturalness of energy working with energy, and the 
Lord of life with life, forbids dispute. Our care must be to 
keep distinct, in our minds, His operations from those of the 
Second Person of the Trinity, Whose work is not so clearly under¬ 
stood. 

The term “Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ” is, we must 
believe, designed, and we can hardly deny, that, in using the 
human name, and the term “Our Lord,” something is involved 
as connecting Grace with Him, not only as of the Trinity, but in 
respect to His God-man power. This we will see further. 

As regards man’s Personality, and Christ's Grace given to 
the same, we must say at once, that, since Person can not enter 
into Person, and, since the Holy Ghost gives the energy to quicken 
its energy, we can see no way for Christ to be Grace to Personality* 
except as follows: The magnet can approach nearer the iron to 
be magnetized, and thus exert greater attraction, and be more 
revealed as the iron’s affinity. Or, and it is a very great point, 
He might work in the Nature or Mechanism in some way, but 
differently from the Spirit, so as to strengthen and change that 
important part of man, and the seat of all his weakness. Rather 
should we speak in the plural and say—the Natures or Mechan¬ 
isms, for man has both physical and spiritual natures. Then, 


Grace and Faith 


23 


in as much as there is action and reaction between Personality 
and Nature, Christ’s work may indeed be a work on the Person¬ 
ality. 

It will do no harm to repeat that Personality can not enter 
into Personality. Person can stand before Person until they 
grow more alike, but to enter into Personality would involve 
absolute contradiction. And, the second point, that the Holy 
Ghost’s own distinctive and personal operation is proper to co¬ 
operation with energy, and covers that whole region, is one that 
needs nothing more to be said. The Grace of Christ must be, 
and is, different. Now, we can, in considering the remaining 
ways left open to us for a conception of the work of Christ’s 
Grace, either conceive Him as standing before the Personality as 
God revealed most nearly, and Man revealed most ideally, and 
the God-man revealed most attractively; or, we can conceive Him 
working somehow in the mechanisms, one or both, and through 
them on the Personality, according to regular or special laws; 
or, yet again, we can ascribe both ways as the way of Christ. It 
is evident that the first is certainly true, and no one could think 
of denying that Christ appears before man’s soul to be received 
in faith and love and knowledge. It is the second that gives 
Theology its modern agitations and confusions. 

But before beginning the analysis of the second, we must 
speak further of the first, and in doing so, let us picture to our¬ 
selves the conditions, and endeavor to do full justice. Christ 
is standing in all the beauty of the Biblical presentation before 
the soul. For what purpose? That the soul may by Faith 
draw nearer to Him, and the inner man which is in process of 
formation may more and more grow into His likeness. Now, this 
inner man, this spiritual man, this never dying man, this man 
of resurrection, when the material mechanism is dust and ashes, 
and passed into other forms of life, is common to all men, good 
or bad. The existance of it is not due to Faith but to God, and 
the processes of life. The quality of it—its resemblance to 
Christ, may be due to Faith, but its entity and its energy is 
apart from Faith. The Chambered Nautilus is building both 
character and additional cell, even while it lives in the cells of 
its birth. So, man inevitably builds, because of life processes, 


24 Analytics of Church Government 

and Faith is given him that the new building might be due to 
his own efforts as to its quality. Thus we can see that Christ 
is carried over into the new building by man’s efforts through 
Faith. Christ Himself might simply stand before the soul, and 
the Holy Spirit, the Lord of all life, build the new man after 
His pattern, in direct proportion to the degree and kind of Faith. 
The Holy Spirit, however, works in such wise that it is the soul 
(like the Nautilus secreting its shell) that grows its future 
mechanism, unless, indeed we understand that character alone 
is formed here, and the Resurrection mechanism prepared in 
Heaven as a gift for the Last Day. 

This distinction between Faith and life forces is thus clearly 
manifest, and it remains with us to say, whether this standing 
before the soul as its magnet is all the proper sphere of Christ 
that there is. Should we stretch Faith to its utmost bounds, we 
can not make it enter into the life force. The eye, the hand, 
the mouth, the assimilator it may be, but the actual constructor 
it can not be. It may so modify the soul, the builder, that the 
soul must build according to its patterns, but the soul has Faith 
for one purpose, and its constructive powers, as regards the new 
mechanism, are separate and distinct. 

We are obliged then to consider the possibility of there being 
another (the second) operation of Christ, and there is indeed 
abundant room for the “Grace of Christ” to enter into the new 
mechanism which is being built. A man can not be bom again 
in the earthly mechanism, but it is Scripture that he can be 
born again in his spiritual nature. Nor is it at all foreign to 
reasonableness, that, while the new is being built, it can not only 
be modified by Christ, by a process of standing before the soul, 
but also by a process of entering into the structure of the new. 
He is God as well as the Holy Spirit is God, and if the Holy 
Spirit can enter into energy, why can not He (by the Holy Spirit) 
enter into mechanism? There is no unreasonableness; we only 
need Scripture to affirm it. Indeed, the first conception—that of 
Faith transferring the image of Christ to the budding and bloom¬ 
ing soul, is not complete. We want an operation of Christ, de^ 
pendent, indeed, on faith conditions, but prosecuted by Himself 


Grace and Faith 


25 


through the proceeding Spirit,—an operation whereby He Him¬ 
self lives with His might and power in us. In this desire, all 
Theology joins. That Christ dwells in the heart by Faith is 
indeed glorious, but that His life-power is our life-power, even 
as in a vine or a body, is the full reach of our Christian doc¬ 
trine. 

As we go into this division of our analysis, it is well to 
clarify our ideas as to the Spiritual or inner man and the new 
mechanism. First of all, there is no new Soul or Personality. 
It is all that we call the Nature which is the mechanism, and 
it is the Spiritual Nature which is the new mechanism. The 
Scientist has an easy time, comparatively, in dealing with the 
present mechanism, because he is steadied by the presence of a 
body. The Theologian, trying to analyze the Spiritual mechan¬ 
ism, is met on the threshold by the difficulty of locating the 
body of the new mechanism, or Spiritual Nature. It will ap¬ 
pear, but is it now? St. Paul says, “There is a natural body, 
and there is a spiritual body,’' but are we warranted in saying 
that the words mean, that it now exists, either as laid up in 
Heaven against the Great Day, or actually behind these material 
bodies, so that, if not all sleeping, but all being changed, in a 
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, it would appear? We 
must be content that the Scriptures leave the question so entirely 
open that when Science and Metaphysics say, that a Soul without, 
or stripped of all mechanism, material or spiritual, is inconceiva¬ 
ble, we are not dumbfounded, but see such a condition is not 
predicated of the Soul by the Bible, except it be by an unneces¬ 
sary interpretation. We would not build on the theory that the 
Spiritual body has existence now, embedded, as it were, in our 
present natures, but it is not precluded. 

However, body does not exhaust the term, mechanism. Me¬ 
chanism is Nature. God hath not body, parts and passions, but 
He has nature. The Personalities of the God-head are distinct, 
and the unity is of the Nature. It is too, this same one infinite 
Nature that each Person of the God-head uses to the full in the 
operations proper to His Personality. Science, too, tells us that 
great differentiation is necessary to high organization. Mechan¬ 
ism is not, therefore, synonymous with body. It is the instru- 


26 Analytics of Church Government 

ment of differentiation, possessed in order that energy might 
break into different streams of thought, or will, or movement. 
In present and ultimate man, the instrument involves body. In 
intermediate man, we know no more of the instrument of organi¬ 
zation than we know of the functions of the Soul in the Inter¬ 
mediate Time. Because God can see, and hear, and feel; we 
say He has organization. Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc., de¬ 
note the infinite character of His organization. But body as 
belonging to God, we deny, and the term, mechanism, for all its 
mechanical ring, avoids the limitations and yet suggests organi¬ 
zation, so that possibly it might be used even of the Diety. In 
the case of man, after it is purged in thought of material ideas, 
it seems a good word. Nature, as a term, is not sufficiently 
antagonistic to Personality for the purpose of strong delinea¬ 
tion. 

Another point to be cleared is the question of character. 
Where does it inhere? We attribute it to the Personality, but 
it is so involved with the mechanism that confusion must result. 
Let us do what we can to see the inter-relations. The energy 
of the Personality, until differentiated by the mechanism, is not 
in the form of Faith, Hope, or any other quality, but when so 
differentiated it is still the energy of the Personality. Again, 
the mechanism changes under its workings, and itself receives 
the characteristic impress of its different streams. Again, it 
is Personality that controls the mechanism, and determines the 
flow of the streams. Nor need the mechanism be a multiplier 
of force, but the mechanism induces the flow of the streams, even 
to the point of testing the control of the Personality, as in the 
case of habits. Again, the very size of a muscle, or fullness of 
healthy blood, mixes itself up with character. 

Now the man who deals with only the problem of the soul 
in the body, or Personality and mechanism united, has a sim¬ 
ple task, compared with one, who must predicate their separation 
to a certain extent, and say to what extent. If totally separated, 
what would become of character so involved in both? Suppose 
we introduce the hypothesis of another mechanism in process of 
formation, under the conditions of registering changes as they 
are made in the old. Then we could see how character could 


Grace and Faith 


27 


be carried on. But if we have too simultaneous mechanisms, 
one physical and the other spiritual, do both react upon the 
Personality at the same time? It certainly seems very perplex¬ 
ing* but while so much of the process and the intermediate stage 
is very dark, yet we have revealed a very clear picture at the end. 
Another mechanism does exist with all the marks of identity with 
the first, and a complete register of its ultimate character and 
attainment; and it exists visibly, although spiritual, and with 
bodily form. The same soul is its indweller. It has registered 
everything. So we are not adrift for an abiding place for charac¬ 
ter, but we are loath to go where Scripture can not be the rock— 
that is to say, we can not declare the process in its fulness. Some 
things are very plain and some are not. 

The plainest thing of all is the abundant room that there is 
for the operation of Christ in the way of Grace. Christ is 
possessed of man’s nature in its spiritual form, and of God’s 
power, and every man is building a new mechanism. What an 
opportunity to enter into the new creation. For instance, man 
will need a new body for the Resurrection, and out of what ele¬ 
ments will it be composed? Those of the Saints will somehow 
bear a marvellous resemblance to that of Christ. 


But let us pass at once to the direct issue, and ask—How does 
Christ give Grace to man in the mechanism? Truly the most 
satisfactory answer is along the line of Regeneration or new birth. 
For, consider the term in connection with the Personality, and 
then with the mechanism. If the Personality be born again, it 
assuredly does not become a new Personality, but, as the term 
distinctly means, is found in a new nature or mechanism. It 
can only be the mechanism that can be renewed. Whether we 
be Creationists or Traducianists, all accept the Soul as deriving 
its mechanism from Adam, and regard the soul once born as 
persistantly identical, however the mechanism in which it is 
bom may change. If then, there be a second birth, it must be 
that a change is wrought in mechanism. Nor would a mere 
modification of present mechanism satisfy the term, birth. How, 


28 Analytics of Church Government 

that man's physical, Adamite mechanism is revolutionized is, of 
course, out of the question, but, in as much as man has a spirit¬ 
ual nature, it must be in regard to this that the term is used. 
So far then we are on solid ground. It must be mechanism that 
becomes new; and Soul is re-born because born for a second time 
in a mechanism. Again it can not be the old Adamite physical 
nature, but the spiritual nature of man that is the seat of so 
vast a change. 

Therefore, to proceed, this spiritual nature is common to 
every man. Even in regard to the resurrection body, every man 
shall rise. It must have its roots then in the Adamic nature 
also—at least be profoundly connected with it. But, is there no 
way to so work on this connection as to engraft the nature on to 
another stock than Adam's, give it connection with another parent, 
as it were, in such wise that strength and life might flow into it 
for its renewal? If it be asked where we can find another parent, 
or the power, we are answered by all the Scriptures, that Christ 
took our flesh and wrought the old Adam into the new spiritual 
man, and does so attach humanity, by the power of the Holy 
Ghost, to Himself, in this new humanity purified and raised from 
the dead, that every Christian is called a member of His body. 
If, again, we point out the indubitable fact, that the old connec¬ 
tion of the spiritual nature with the fleshly is still maintained, 
and that, therefore, if there be a new connection with Christ, 
through this engrafting process, there must be two roots to the 
spiritual nature, which is both Adamic and Christian, then again 
we find that in truth this condition would only explain how It 
is, that the soul can have its choice, through Faith, whether it 
shall live in the Christ or Adam root, and thus the sphere of 
Faith be vindicated; which indeed is a most vital consideration. 
Finally, we must confront the necessity of seeing in the process 
of grafting above mentioned the real qualities of a birth. Here 
we are aided by the Scriptures, which use the engrafting process 
as well as the regenerating to describe the Christian’s relation 
to our spiritual head. But, apart from that, it seems only neces¬ 
sary to point out, that we must not press either metaphor, de¬ 
scribing the spiritual process, too far. Either one, in respect to 


Grace and Faith 


29 


putting another source of health, strength, character, duration of 
life and fitness for future environments, will answer. Were it 
the object of the new birth to bring man back to a formative 
infancy, grafting would be a poor substitute; but, if it be to give 
a new stream of life to a weak and diseased branch of an effete 
root, then the two terms are not appreciably apart. 

The second great reason, for believing that Christ works di¬ 
rectly in the nature by Grace, is found in the constant picture 
of man's relation to Christ as member of His body. This term 
discussed in connection with Personality and Mechanism, takes 
us inevitably to the side of Mechanism. That, in so far as we 
have connection with Christ, it is with the mechanism or nature 
of Christ seems manifest. Of course, the risen Christ, the spirit¬ 
ual Man who is the head of the race, is meant. The Personality 
of Christ is Divine, and, together with the Divine Nature or 
Mechanism, is out of the question. Nor does man’s Personality 
become clothed with Christ’s human spiritual Mechanism in such 
wise that man would possess it in addition to his own spiritual, 
and his own physical mechanism. So, too, man’s physical me¬ 
chanism can not become attached to Christ’s body physical or 
spiritual. The whole region is not the region of the physical, 
but of the spiritual; and the sphere is not the sphere of the 
Personality, but of the Nature. Christ in His human, risen, 
glorified, spiritual mechanism attaches man’s spiritual mechanism 
to His own, in such wise, that man’s Nature can receive the 
life of His. Man becomes a member of His body. 

Finally, if even the above engrafted relation is possible, by 
means of the Holy Ghost, the whole story of the Bible indicates 
it as the reality of its teaching. That Book is a prophetical, 
and then an actual account of the assumption of a mechanism ; 
of the processes of the elevation of that mechanism to the height 
of man’s possible destiny—even unto transfiguration; of the put¬ 
ting off the mechanism as material and the clothing the Person¬ 
ality with it as spiritual; of the exhibition of it as spiritual in 
such wise as to give man his only conception of what final man 
shall be. And, it gives this vision not as a conception merely, 
but as an object of deep abiding belief. No vision of the man 
who is without Christ, as he rises for condemnation, is given us; 


30 


Analytics of Church Government 


only do we know anything of resurrection mechanism as it is 
both human and Christlike. That Christ works in the Nature 
seems beyond question, as we thus view that Nature. The very 
seeming indicates it; and is it only seeming? On the anvil, 
and in the furnace of Christ’s life was the humanity wrought in 
which we will live. Spiritual God-man, and spiritual mere man, 
and the Holy Spirit Himself, these form the data for the spiritual 
New-man, who is to be neither God-man, nor mere man, but 
Christ-man or Christian. 

Yet is not Faith excluded in this work, in and through the 
Nature. The Nature must never control the Personality, but 
the Person his Nature. Christ does not seize the Nature, and 
through it force the Person into His image. He merely, as has 
been said, so attaches the spiritual nature of man to His own, 
that it can obtain His strength. The spiritual nature is already 
linked to the flesh of Adam. The Personality must choose its 
plan and material for the new building, and draw from Christ, 
or Adam, according to Faith. Just as fully as when Christ 
stands before the Personality, and outside of the Nature, so, 
when he stands within the Nature, must Faith lead to choice, 
so that Personality controlling Nature, the actual growth or 
building may be the Person’s very own. The work of Faith 
must not be made void but established by Grace. But Faith is 
not Grace and can not create Grace. 

What, then, is Grace? The Grace of the Holy Spirit is, 
essentially, energy—Divine energy, inducing and increasing all 
personal and natural energy; and the Grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ is human nature—the human nature that has lived, con¬ 
quered, and, risen in glory, is itself spiritual and strong in its 
every fibre; and which can supply the human energy that is capa¬ 
ble of responding to the work of the Holy Ghost. 

One further word about the mechanism of the old Adam 
and this part of the subject can be left. If this same Adamite 
mechanism could be improved, rendered more productive of Faith, 
Love, Temperance, Virtue, etc., it stands to reason that the spirit¬ 
ual nature, logical to it and having its roots in it, now 
in process of formation, would have the benefit of all the im¬ 
provement. There can be no doubt that Christ standing before 


Grace and Faith 


31 


the Personality can so influence man that even the old Adam im¬ 
proves. It might even be thought that this exhausted the line 
of Christ’s work, were it not for His own revelation of deeper 
work through the Nature. The question can not be, therefore, 
as to great help coming to man, and, therefore, Grace, through 
the objective presentation of the God-man, but it is as to the 
further help, coming through an operation peculiar to the God- 
man, by which He uses Divine power to give human nature of 
His own forging to men, and that too, in their very natures them¬ 
selves. 

The work of God is, therefore, complete. No part of man 
is omitted as a fulcrum for the leverage of Grace. The Per¬ 
sonality is variously influenced, the energy of the Personality pro¬ 
voked and increased, the energy of the mechanism, both in the 
material and spiritual departments, is cultivated, while the work 
is extended so far as even to open a way for the true humanity 
of Christ to pour its floods into the spiritual nature of man, 
whence, by reaction, it even influences also the material mechan¬ 
ism of present life, causing this too to contribute to the building 
of the new man, after the pattern of Christ. 

To some theologians, a confirmation of this analysis will be 
seen in the position they are inclined to take, viz: that God and 
Creation could only meet through an incarnation (Fall or no 
Fall), which would bridge the chasm between the height of Crea¬ 
tion (man) and Divinity—an incarnation resulting in the God- 
man, who would carry Divine strength into manhood, and Crea¬ 
tion’s voluntary obedience to the very throne. 


Our analysis of Faith and Grace is now complete. It re¬ 
mains to show its bearing on our subject. Truly it seems al¬ 
most too large an accumulation for so small use, but, neverthe¬ 
less, it has been bought together merely to establish, in full 
perspective, the correlation of Faith and Grace, in the sphere of 
Church Government—that is to say, the principles of Association 
and Incorporation. The constant leaving out of sight of one of 
these principles has vitiated so much of the work of the past, 
that it seemed the very first step to fix the matter so that it could 


32 


Analytics of Church Government 


not, and would not be done. To be sure, there might be shorter 
ways of demonstrating the twin principles of Association and 
Jncorporation, but a correct analysis of Grace and Faith seemed 
the very best, because the very surest. 

In the above analysis it was seen, that, even though God 
opened fountains of Grace within the Nature, the Personality, 
only as it wrought through Faith, could profit by that Grace 
Faith alone could bring the soul into such relation to God, or 
Truth, or Grace, that it might apprehend that for which it was 
apprehended. The Church is, therefore, necessarily, the whole 
body of the Faithful, i. e., of those who by Faith see, accept, 
reach out for, grasp, feed upon, assimilate, and reproduce the 
gifts of God. This Faith is not a possession proper to the whole, 
taken as a unit, but it is individual, it is particular, it is of the 
individuals own will and choosing. Now to ignore so great a 
principle as this in the matter of Government were the height 
of folly. If even God’s gifts must wait on Faith, how much 
more all rule and control. If God can not be received, except 
as of Faith, how much more the blessings of Government. The 
drinking soul equally with the drinking animal necessitates that 
the Government over it recognize the principle of choice. And 
Faith is greater than choice, so that there is far more reason for 
the placing of Association as of basic importance in Church Gov¬ 
ernment. 

But, if there is something common to the whole body of 
Christians, and, if this is not a mere brand, or mark, on the out¬ 
ward man, but a something in the very nature, and that, too, the 
spiritual nature, then another principle appears. If, on analy¬ 
sis, this something common to all, and in the spiritual nature of 
all, is seen to be that connection with Christ, which makes them 
members of one body, and that body His body, then the principle 
of Incorporation has as strong a position as that of Association. 
As a Father has a right of authority over his children, so, if 
Christ has made all natures to be attached to His nature. He, 
and then, after Him, His delegates have authority over those 
natures. The principle of Association depends upon the Per¬ 
sonality; that of Incorporation upon the Nature. The whole 
man can only be governed rightly Vhen both are recognized. It 


Grace and Faith 


33 


is true then, that " Faith attracts him there, and 'persuasively 
Tceeps him there ” and, also, that “Grace put him there and binds 
him there ” For, once in Christ, only God can sever the branch. 
But what good were a regard for formal connections, to the hurt 
of living relations? 

In conclusion, it can he seen, how hard it were for humanity 
to takd Church government, which, as it came from Christ, 
ideally recognized both principles, and carry it on through such 
a life as the world has manifested, without fallings off on one 
side or another, and without breaks, in the very struggle to mend. 
Therefore, with broadest sympathies that prejudices will allow 
us, and even rending our prejudices for charity’s sake, let us 
seek through the records a vision of that Government which rightly 
allots the twin principles. 


CHAPTER II 


authority ant> Consent 

The consideration of Government and its general principles 
comes before that of Chnrch Government and its specialties. 

Whenever a Government is to be established, these three 
things must be carefully kept in view: the liberty of the individu¬ 
als governed; that of the whole body of the governed; and that 
of the Government itself. By liberty is of course meant not 
“formal freedom,’’ but “real freedom,” the object of all law and 
government. Surely government has as its supreme raison 
d’etre the guidance of men and bodies of men to an order of 
right conduct; and so, also, it must equally secure its own life 
in an order of righteousness. Oftentimes the liberty, both of 
men and the body of men, has been considered, but not with 
equal wisdom has the life, permanence and order of the govern¬ 
ment itself been provided for. Thus even a constitution can be 
written, which will balance admirably the rights of men and 
the whole body of the governed, but, nevertheless, sowing the seeds 
of death in the very forms of its own structure, it may be by too 
great rigidity, or it may be by too great laxity. A written con¬ 
stitution has the fault of rigidity, if not amendable; and, if 
amendable the danger of being hacked to a pitiable torso. A 
Constitutional Monarchy may totter from an excess of the old 
Adam on the Throne. Therefore it were folly to guard the 
independence of the 'individual, and the progress of the people, 
and not endeavor to protect the permanence of the government, 
which secures these very things. Nor is it to be assumed, that 
the care \taken for the first objects secures the lasting of that 
which provides for the rest. A government is an organization, 
and has its own corporate life and laws of health as soon as it 
begins to be, and apart from all the work it must do for those 
for whom it exists. There is for it, therefore, a sphere of order 
in which it will find its own liberty. The region is marked out 
as logical to the two crossing lines of Authority and Consent. 
Particular forms of government are only to be judged according to 


Authority and Consent 


35 


capacity, to preserve and present these twin principles; and again, 
particular forms of government are only possible according to 
conditions of the peoples. But, under no conceivable circum¬ 
stances can government fulfill its function of both living in liberty 
and blessing the governed in an order of right conduct—their 
true liberty, unless these two ideas dominate the whole structure 
in harmony. As to Authority, it must be exhibited in origin, 
and in continuance. There must be in rule the right to rule. 
Authority must be exhibited in strength and power, both as against 
external attacks and internal dissensions. Authority must be 
exhibited as generative. Consent must be exhibited as accepting 
the past, supporting the present, pledged to the future. Con¬ 
sent of the individual extends not as far as the consent of the 
body, because the liberty, or real freedom of the individual is that 
of one who is by nature a herd or flock or pack-member, and 
his social relations dominate his private by very instincts. He 
is neither right nor happy away from the herd. The herd’s 
consent will secure his, by natural law. Struggle for leadership 
he will, sulk he may, but nature is all for following when the 
mass moves. 

Much has been written about the right of Consent—the con¬ 
sent of the governed. It is well to glance at the principle upon 
which it is most firmly founded. 

If government was intended primarily for restriction, and 
was satisfied with restriction, it would be almost useless to speak 
of the Consent of the governed, but government is made as a 
guide to liberty, and is for development, not restriction. The 
co-operation of the governed is an absolute essential, therefore, to 
secure the purposes of government. Government is perverted, 
if wielded for restriction only, and is a failure in its very heart, 
if Consent is ignored or contravened. 

It is now necessary to make a distinction as to the right of 
Consent and the right of self-government. Beyond all question 
there are races utterly incapable of self-government. Co-ordinat¬ 
ing faculties, legal acumen, and much besides is entirely lacking. 
Republican forms may oftentimes be ruled out by the inability 
to find men competent for the simplest offices. But, neverthe¬ 
less, these people are no more to be governed contrary to their 


36 


Analytics of Church Government 


consent than any others, if government is to fulfil its purposes. 
Forms must give way to Principles, and Authority and Consent, 
united in whatever arrangements the circumstances allow, must 
still guide the Rulers. Even if people are as children, yet it 
must be remembered that the government of children is based on 
the same principle. Only when dealing with soldiers, where 
orders to face death require Authority to rise above life-value, 
can the principle of Consent be cast away. It must be admitted 
that even Depotism is sometimes a necessity, even as in child 
government there must be paroxisms. But Despotisms see them¬ 
selves their own destroyers, and that, too, through the self-asser¬ 
tion of Consent. That which was meant to be led can not alto¬ 
gether be driven. 

The practical difficulty of pleasing the governed, and gain¬ 
ing their adhesion to Authority in its origin, continuity, power 
and propagation are the problems of practical governors. The 
principles will not down, because of practical difficulties. Gov¬ 
ernment can not vitiate its purposes or its principles because of 
difficulties. Even tribal forms have at times been the best forms; 
and so, too, every possible form has found a field with more or less 
success. The form most repudiated and abhorred in all times, 
climates and lands (and, remarkable to say, the one whose action 
is most plainly exhibited in History) is Tyranny; which, even 
while it governed, yet failed in the purpose of government. As 
to Republican forms, it can not be too plainly said, that while 
ideally the highest, yet an enlightened people, and a self-restrained 
people is required, if at one and the same time the people are 
to constitute the Authority and receive the rights of Consent. 
To make the one strong enough to balance the freedom of the 
other; and to secure the latter against the subsequent usurpations 
of that, which, even in its beginnings, is given strength, is the 
glorious problem of the future statesmen, when a people can be 
found fitted for the foundations. In the meantime, the best 
races are experimenting with varying success, and undoubted prog¬ 
ress in nearly all the possible forms. Probably God has de¬ 
signed that all States and Governments shall be subject to a 
certain leeway, which He Himself shall direct by the strength 
of His own currents and winds. 


Authority and Consent 


37 


When we come to the government of God’s Church, we are 
made absolutely sure that the purpose of government is liberty, 
and that restriction must be dignified into guidance. Here, too, 
we can not but see clearly that the individual and the body of men 
must both be cared for, in their spheres, and that the welfare 
and permanence of the government itself is of vital importance. 
Authority and Consent too, must remain the cardinal principles 
controlling, rather than subject to forms. But, over and above 
all, we must be brought face to face with the radical necessity 
which there is in Church government for the operations of God 
that constitute its distinguishing feature. For, it is clear, that 
the main object in view in Church Government is the introduc¬ 
tion of God, in power and might, into the midst of man’s weak¬ 
ness, along the very lines of self-government 

If we were called upon to assign a reason why God Himself 
determined and established Church Government, we could find 
none greater than this—that, because Church government was to 
be His Government, it must be one adapted to Him, as well as 
to men. It was not to be one by which they could govern them¬ 
selves, but one in which, and through which He could best gov¬ 
ern them; and yet not as above them, but in, and through them. 
How little would Church Government differ from any other gov¬ 
ernment, even though God be its founder, were it not for this 
consideration of His continuance in it. The claims of Church 
Government must not only be that its origin is of God, but that 
God is ever its present life and authority; and therefore, pari 
passu, the construction of Church Government must be such 
(and ever such) as to put no stoppage to this Divine operation. 
In looking them for the Divine plan, due regard must be had 
for this most essential feature—THE CHURCH MUST BE A 
PATHWAY FOR GOD. 

Of course we can assign several reasons why God Himself 
determined the form of Church Government, but there are two 
which must not be left without a plain expression of them. One 
is, the -vast difference between God’s conception of time, and 
man’s impulsive view of it. Another is, a similar divergence of 
view in regard to Force. Man is ever prone to be short, sharp 
and decisive. Time is a troubler to his mind, and he longs to 


38 


Analytics of Church Government 


handle the lightnings. When a century must elapse for re¬ 
sults to vindicate a policy, he is in despair. When a multitude 
of points and peaks'carry off all that electricity that might have 
roared and flashed, his mind reverts to thoughts of the weak 
things of Nature. But with God, time is a chosen servant, and 
in His own operations He counts not a thousand years. When 
man arranges for Government, his mind runs on crises and decis¬ 
ions. God must prevent these in behalf of growth and of living 
sentiment. He Himself lays down forms so that the element 
of time can not be eliminated. Man might base all on Authority : 
God provides for Consent. Accustomed to presetnt even Him¬ 
self, despite power and majesty, before the human heart, for 
acceptance or rejection; accustomed to wait long years upon the 
soul in matters of very salvation, why should He hesitate to sub¬ 
ject Truth or any other thing to similar processes of Time? 
Consent once gained to Authority marks out so different a path 
from the one which would be traced after, helpless submission to 
Authority. Again, as to Force, God exhibits a modicum, as 
we see from storms and earth-quakes, etc.,—enough to keep us 
in mind that all power is His, but for the most part (vastly 
so), He suspends convulsive outpourings and overwhelming mani¬ 
festations in deference to His fixed policy of long and gentle draw¬ 
ings. The apparent weakness of God is one of the marvels of 
our world. The rebel dares Him to His face, and only balmy 
sunshine seems to answer from Heaven. 

While, then, we have often read arguments which lay stress 
on the vigor, concentration and authority of this or that form of 
Church Government, we are forced to conclude, that if God has 
expressly ordained forms of government suited to His own pres¬ 
ence and His own ways, He has had great regard for the elements 
of gentleness and patience as necessary to wisdom and success. 
The continuance of Government is at stake as well as the welfare 
of the individual and the mass. The Church as adapted to God 
and His presence, can not be designed on lines of tyranny, and 
it will lean to long times and gentle processes. Authority and 
Consent will be as the mathematical axes of its construction. 
The problem of Church Government is not that of gaining strength 
from power, but strength from willingness—or will. 


Authority and Consent 


39 


God in Authority, and God in Consent; these are two phases 
of God in Church Government. We will consider each in turn. 

The proper place of Authority is the place of dignity, sta¬ 
bility, adaptability, respect and power. Law, it would seem, ought 
to flow steadily and not alternately stagnate and swirl. Strength 
is of supreme importance, not that it might over-ride, but induce 
Consent. All the requisites of Authority look to the winning, not 
the forcing of Consent. Therefore, whien we recognize God in 
the place of Authority in Church Government, it is not for the 
sake of violence of method, and summariness of action, for He 
Himself has not entered and enthroned Himself for that purpose, 
but for the sake of winning, without struggle and conflict, the 
ends sought. “Lest haply we be found fighting against God” is 
the thought that should be present in the minds of all under 
Church Authority. The visible Authorities will in any case be 
men—men of like frailties with the rest of mankind, but, if be¬ 
hind them God Himself be, even seeming weakness may become 
very strong. The State suffers greatly from having nothing be¬ 
hind the head and front of outward seeming, save such things as 
she dare not reveal too nakedly. Of infinite value to the Church 
is God’s presence behind the outward front and face of Authority. 
Now, of course, in this age, no one can dream of supposing God 
committed to, and sanctioning all that the visible powers set forth, 
and not because the Church is divided, but because the Human 
element is recognized as a corrupting element, or at least a pos¬ 
sibly corrupting element. (Even in the Communion claiming in¬ 
fallibility, that gift is but rarely appealed to, or provided for, and, 
confessedly, there is involved a process which specially subjects 
the earthly governor to the Heavenly.) But even in this age 
there is always the thought of God behind the visible men who wield 
the governing machinery of the various Communions. Therefore, 
because God can inspire, direct and speak, using human elements, 
such easily defied things as the various governing bodies of the sev¬ 
eral religious communions enjoy an amount of respect and defer¬ 
ence unknown to the State even in Czardom. There is nothing new 
at all in this thought of the presence of God inspiring and directing 
Authority, but it must be remembered, that, even when His in¬ 
spiration has been cast aside by the rulers, and the visible authori- 


40 


Analytics of Church Government 


ties have gone directly against God, yet, to the multitude, the 
thought of God behind the visible promulgators and executors of 
law, or policy, or doctrine has sometimes been too powerful to re¬ 
sist. From one standpoint in fact, it looks as though visible au¬ 
thorities have ever tried to induce the masses to regard God as 
behind their promulgations, and then, having gained that point, 
to put forth what suited their purposes, which were often very 
much of the earth, earthly. The vast need of God as the Inspirer, 
and Director of authorities, is made only too patent by the his¬ 
tory of the Church in all ages. But, what a large mistake it is 
to look solely in the region of Authority for God’s ruling of the 
Church! Many of those promulgations are utterly against God. 
Has he failed then? No! His function as Inspirer and Guide to 
authorities has been exercised, but not regarded. And this dis¬ 
regard is strictly in line with man’s treatment of God in all 
spheres of action. After all, however, God’s functions have not 
been fully exhibited. He has often been found inspiring the 
government against the iniquities of authorities. The God of 
electricity is not only in the clouds, but also in the earth. The 
God of hearts is not only in the Christ at the door, but also in 
the yearning and hungry soul within the bars. The God of law 
and order not only commands, but receives. In fact, God gov¬ 
erns the Church through every function of the Church. He is 
in Authority, and also in Consent. When the authorities will 
not be guided, God, who first endeavored to work with them, is 
found working with the people. And it is the ignoring of so 
great a fact by authorities that has caused much of the Church’s, 
and the world’s troubles. God is with us, cry the rulers. He 
wishes to be, but you bar the way, answer the people. Why do 
not the rulers sometimes suspect that God is indeed with the peo¬ 
ple? If He did not work with the people, how would there ever 
be a consent to Authority? In truth, History is a continual 
revelation of God as working out the problems of Church and 
world government, not only by ordering, but by receiving; in turn, 
rejecting where He has been rejected, and confirming where He 
has been acknowledged. 

God in Consent is no new principle, however, to the world’s 
intelligence. It could not but be, that the claims that God was 


Authority and Consent 


41 


behind every iniquity that authorities put forth, would be met 
by counter claims that tended to equal exaggeration. 

Now the proper place of Consent is the place of the veto, 
which is as separate from the place of Authority as judgment is 
from law. To erect the veto power into the law-making power 
would be the greatest of mistakes (though admission to a share 
may be granted, by virtue of a principle elsewhere treated of). 
The law-making power must be concentrated, because of the need 
of dignity, stability, adaptibility, respect and power ; but for the 
veto power the broadest basis is necessary. In a Republic, a Presi¬ 
dent’s veto is a technicality, but the people’s veto is a finality. 
Again, to endeavor to make the whole people legislators is but to 
bring in the ignorant for the most delicate of work, but in as 
much as the test of law is to be its effect on the masses, their veto 
power is inalienable by the very terms. The essence of Republic¬ 
anism is not so much the right of the people to elect, as it is the 
right to veto. It is of course a point gained additionally to be 
able to propose and make law, but the citadel of free government 
is the right to annul. The first requires representatives, but the 
last rests for its chief force upon the power of inertia inherent in 
the mass. Now it is this very inertia of the mass that God know r s 
so well how to utilize to defeat the errors of authorities. In the 
end, after long periods it may be, the iniquities of Church and 
world fall away surely and effectually. 

Whether the Church be monarchical or republican in form 
need not here concern us. There is a ruling centre, and there is 
a veto power, and God, even as He is God, works in both for the 
government of the whole. Law is only letter until it works. God 
must be in the letter and in the working equally. If He is in the 
latter He will be in the working, but if He be not in the letter, 
how will He ever be in the working? This is the consolation of 
the Church—Her failures are of men, Her successes are of God; 
Her failures fall away. His workings endure. The Church is 
governed to Her divine end, and, meantime, souls are saved even 
amid the w r orst confusions. 

But are the forms of Church Government arranged for the 
work of God in Consent, as well as in Authority? Certainly, if 
God first instituted the government of the Church, and made it 


42 


Analytics of Church Government 


to be a pathway for Himself, we are to conclude, that it is so ar¬ 
ranged in its very forms, as to serve this purpose. Had He in¬ 
tended only to direct authorities, we would not and could not have 
seen much that the world has actually passed through. Had He, 
on the other hand, left forms of Authority to men, and contented 
Himself with inspiring the people to accept, or resist and agitate, 
we might indeed explain the many-hued aspects of authorities, 
on the principle of their being altogether human, but this sup¬ 
position of Him as working indeed, but forbearing to work in the 
conception of law, and the setting forth of law, would be altogether 
far-fetched. That He works with authorities is entirely granted 
by all, and has ever been; and that He works with the people is 
just as safely evident. He who arranged the forms of matter 
that He might work both in positive and negative affinities; He 
who arranged forms of life that He might work in generative and 
also conceptive faculties, is also the same, who, in a sphere of 
order and law, provides both for promulgation and reception—or 
Authority and Consent. Duality of powers, and duality of forms 
that are as matrices for the powers, these we know as the very 
signs of Divine workings. God must meet God, life must meet 
life, order must meet order, and if God in any wise design the 
forms, this meeting of complementary forces must be the very ob¬ 
ject of His care. Let us conceive the law-making and executive 
power placed in position natural to Authority, not that it might 
crush, but be Godlike; and so, also, let the veto power be pro¬ 
vided for as slow-gathering, time-taking, accumulative, irrepres¬ 
sible, naturally casting off and taking on, and finally vehemeDt 
and strenuous when long suppressed—all this in order that it be 
not crushed, but be able to array itself with God for resistance to 
what is un-Godlike. It would not do, at this stage of the discussion 
of Church Government, to touch upon specific forms as embodying 
these two principles. 

Of the greatest moment is the following consideration. Which 
is naturally the greatest power, Authority or Consent? Which 
has the advantage of position? The first shock of meeting in an¬ 
tagonism is not the real test of course. Only when we note the 
reserve power of Consent do we see its superiority. Authority 
can be overthrown, crushed, scattered and annihilated, but Con- 


Authority and Consent 


43 


sent is embedded too deeply and broadly to be thoroughly reached 
by the forces of Authority, for anything like this. It can often¬ 
times remain silent, and yet be as powerful as if shouting. Let 
Authority beware! Let it remember too, that its real power must 
lie in wisdom not aggressiveness. But, Authority needs to win 
without issue, much less battle. Woe to the King who stirs up 
his people to battle against him when every man can become a 
soldier. Authority must have, therefore, a vast preponderence of 
seeming strength. It must have powers of concentration and 
rapid demonstration. Its voice must be distinct, and its power of 
decision clear. If it fails in the first movement, it is hardly apt 
to acquire greater force, save only by turning to tyranny. Consent 
will not know how to speak for a long while. It will begin to act 
before it finds its clear voice, or formulates to its own mind it3 
true position. In God’s government, as established in His Church, 
all this is, of course, carefully considered. It will guide us, doubt¬ 
less, to note the balance of parts in the various systems of Church 
Government alleged to be of God. 

And, now, we come to a point that is often overlooked, and 
it is this. Authority can never in its most peaceful winnings of 
Consent, and very much less in its warfares with it, dispense with 
the weight and prestige which comes from valid origin. The 
lack of it ends Authority, even if there be cases where the having 
it avails little more than the preventing of this end. Then, too, 
the origin of Authority must not spring out of Consent; or Con¬ 
sent could claim power to nullify, to unmake what it has made 
(the weak point of written constitutions), and to change what it 
does not like. It is very aggravating, too, to present generations, 
to be called to assent to the Consent of former peoples and even 
races. Authority is a pitiful weakling, if it have not so strong 
and clear and independent an origin that it can keep its head on 
its shoulders. It is shorn of life if it be shorn of origin that is 
independent of Consent. In the State, where self-government is 
aimed at. Consent may be parent to Authority, but it is a weak 
point. In the Church, however, God’s Consent is the inevitable 
origin, i. e., God’s appointment apart from, and above human 
Consent, though not necessarily contrary to it—rather the oppo* 
site, of course. 


44 Analytic of Church Government 

Finally, it ought to be observed, that the just and due bal¬ 
ance of the parts of Church government, upon which so much was 
to hinge and depend, could hardly be worked out by man soon 
enough for this balance to begin at the beginning. Granting that 
experience might bring men to knowledge of requisites, yet it is 
plain, that a right start was necessary. How to embody, at the 
very first, the principles of Church Government, making the 
Church a pathway for God, through the double way of Authority 
and Consent, giving to Authority all it needed to be Authority, 
in law and administration, and to Consent all it needed to be thb 
veto power, effectually and pre-eminently, and the assenting power, 
continuously, to do these things in such wise, that neither the 
one nor the other could be decisive, save by following God’s ways 
of time and growth—this was the problem, and only Divine wis¬ 
dom could perform the task. Mark, that the principles of Church 
Government are but the principles of government, and that the 
great need was for forms that would guard these. Again mark, 
that only such forms as would securely guard the principles needed 
the Divine institution. It was not necessary to establish the whole 
structure of forms (entailing the logic, that men would be muti¬ 
lating God’s work, in case that any one form should be touched). 
From the very fact that Divine wisdom was at work, we would 
expect something simple and yet comprehensive. Therefore, pur¬ 
suing our analysis, let it be observed, that Consent, by its very 
nature, could not have locality given it very definitely. It would 
be weakened if that were the case. The Roman Tribuneship of 
the people, as seen in the case of the Gracchi, is a case in point. 
Consent gains power from diffuseness. As a vehicle of God, it 
would be best, that it rest on breadth of foundation, and permeate 
the whole structure, formless, but finding utterance according to 
circumstances. With Authority the case must be different. Here, 
there must be locality—office and earthly rulers. And, so, we are 
led on to the point of noting, that it is the central office which is 
at stake chiefly. Indeed it is perfectly possible to see, that if God 
authorized a single office, and determined its powers and relations 
(plurality or singularity, for instance). He thereby determined 
forms of government which would naturally determine all others. 

In other words, while contending that true analysis of Church 


Authority and Consent 


45 


Government makes us conclude, that God established forms, it 
is not necessary to say—all forms, but controlling forms, central 
forms. Let Him but give Authority earthly expression and de* 
finite source, and He would impress Himself on all forms under 
it, working, as ever, through Authority and Consent. It may be 
He went further; it may be that He ordained locality for Consent, 
and divided up Authority in major and minor offices, etc., but, it 
is only necessary that God should locate Authority, and form 
would spring into existence. It is easily tested. Locate chief 
authority in a Council, a Congregation, an Assembly of officers, 
a number of officers all of equal powers, a single supreme officer, 
and how vast the differences, as logical results follow! 

But, it must be said, that it is a great point gained, when we 
see that whatever may be the locality and powers of Authority, 
Consent must be untouched in its vitality, so that it can not be 
throttled; and, that by the very choice of the seat of Authority, 
and limitation of its powers, God has preserved the functions of 
Consent to the Church. 


CHAPTER III 


(Brace in Hutborit\>; Jfaltb tn Consent 

We ought now to be able to combine the results of our analy¬ 
sis of Grace and Faith, and of Authority and Consent; and this 
we proceed to do. 

We have seen that Church Government differs from any and 
all other government by reason of the element—God. It is not 
only necessary that God should be the founder and instituter— 
the source of Authority, but He must forever be in Church Gov¬ 
ernment as its life and power. It is not a case of the Church 
governing for God, but God Himself governing through the instru¬ 
mentality of the Church. As was said in the last chapter, Church 
Government must be adapted to God so that He might govern 
through it; and that one great reason why He Himself determined 
and established Church Government was, that his place and move¬ 
ment in it might be fittingly provided. We have also seen that 
He has secured His place in it by means of working with Consent, 
as well as with Authority. He knows how both to inspire Au¬ 
thority and prepare Consent. His methods too are those of time 
and growth. Either the earthly authorities may not hearken at 
once to His inspiration, or the powers that hold Consent lend them¬ 
selves to His influence, but taking His time and working by 
growth, He finally brings the two together. By working with both 
powers He antagonizes, neutralizes and reconciles until He gov¬ 
erns, just as with positive and negative forces of Nature, or with 
generative and conceiving faculties He works His own will in the 
end. 

To conceive the Church in any other light than this is only to 
conceive it utterly different from all of God’s own creations, from 
His whole Universe in fact. Even in secular governments we can 
see the play of these forces so plainly as to bring the thought that 
it is by these antagonisms and reconciliations that God gains His 
ends for all governing; but in Church affairs God has pledged His 
continual presence, and according to our analysis. He works all 


Grace in Authority; Faith in Consent 


47 


to His mind by means of working, now with one, and now with 
the other. 

Authority is positive, is generative. Consent is negative, 
armed with veto power, in fact conceptive. 

What, then, is the special form that God’s help and presence 
will take, as best suited to the contending powers of Authority 
and Consent? It seems very simple to answer, that He will equip 
Consent with Faith—the grace of Faith, if you will; and Au¬ 
thority with Grace that will invigorate for law-making, doctrine¬ 
settling, the determining of worship, the executing of decrees or 
laws, the administering of ordinances, the preaching of word, the 
teaching of truth, the helping of those committed to its care—in 
a word, all the functions of a ministry; and we can, for brevity, 
simply call this Grace. 

Consent is primarily concerned with receiving. It has no 
proper function until some word, law, decree, doctrine, sacrament, 
prayer or discipline is brought to it for acceptance or rejection. 
Faith to see God behind it, and to accept it as from Him, or to 
refuse to see God and reject it—this would be Consent under 
God’s guidance; but, of course, Consent will be no more infallibly 
subject to the influence of God than Authority might be. Consent 
might be recalcitrant, refusing Faith, even where God urges; or 
yielding, where God would work firmness of rejection. God, we 
must know, will have His difficulties with forming Consent, as 
well as with controlling councils or officers in the right way. The 
Council of Nicsea was ultimately received, but only after a long 
time did the Church settle down to the acceptance of its decrees. 
But, after all is said, it is very plain that, when God begins to 
work with Consent, it will be to stir up and direct the powers of 
Faith in the man, the people, or the whole mass of the Church, 
as the case may be. 

With Authority, the Grace of God is likewise bestowed ac¬ 
cording to function. Authority must manifest itself in a multi¬ 
tude of ways. The entire functions of the ministry, both taken 
collectively and individually, universally and locally, officially and 
in those other ways collateral with official action, although more 
nearly touching private life, belong to it. Wherever Authority 
proclaims itself, there the people look for God—His wisdom, love, 


48 


Analytics of Church Government 


order, patience, gentleness, power and every other quality. No 
plea of the frailty of humanity avails. Being the Church, God 
is looked for. Being Church Government, absolute perfection is 
demanded. This is not wrong. The Authority is God’s authority, 
and ought to be stamped with God’s character. The Grace, then, 
needed by Authority, is that which would enable the people ever 
to find what they look for; and we must conclude that this Grace 
is given. If we ask why it can not be manifested fully, and al¬ 
ways, the answer is of course plain—Authority is as recalcitrant 
to God’s guidance as Consent is seen to be. Its task may be 
harder, or no more difficult, but it is perfectly patent to all men 
that Authority is very imperfect as a manifestor of God’s perfec¬ 
tion. Grace is its great need therefore. We might say a grace 
Faith wards—that God might be perceived and hearkened to; but 
certainly a grace of action—that God might be expressed in law 
and doctrine, word and worship, precept and example. 

If we be disposed to criticise, either the body of the Church, 
for withholding Consent at proper times, or the authorities of the 
Church, for ungodly action at proper times, no one can demur; 
but neither result has prevented the Church, in the main, from 
its progress, and God’s grace to authorities, and help to Consent 
is seen to have existed all along. Again, this progress could not 
have taken place unless God had wrought with both. 

Now, having seen God striving with each of the two parties— 
with one for Grace unto action, and with the other for Faith unto 
co-operation, the great question is ready for us. Could God with¬ 
hold Grace from the one, or Faith from the other? We can not 
conceive it. It is the field of His labor. He can antagonize them, 
neutralize their errors by playing the one against the other, and 
take time to reconcile them, but He will unceasingly be found 
acting with both. The conclusion then is inevitable—that where- 
ever Authority is found, there is found Grace also. And the cor¬ 
ollary of this is equally true—that the line of Authority is the 
line of Grace, the line of God’s effort to govern through the in¬ 
strument that He has chosen. To abandon His own instrument 
of Authority, to empty it, and make it void—this we can not for 
a moment allow as of God. Just as the task of God is in the case 
of all, so is His task in the case of each—that of making Author- 


Grace in Authority; Faith in Consent 49 

ity an expression of Himself. As the task is, in the case of law¬ 
making or the exegesis of doctrine, so is it in the case of pastoral 
work, or the expounding of the word. Nor, when we behold the 
recalcitrance of the mass, can we wonder at that of the individuals. 

We are still very far from determining when, or where, or 
in what form God established Authority for His Church. We 
have only gone as far as to show that Authority needs its comple¬ 
ment, Consent, in order that there may be a government by God; 
and that we are to make an allowance for time and growth, ere we 
expect to see God’s wisdom issue from the oppositions and recon¬ 
ciliations of these two; and that He is pledged to work with both; 
and that He gives grace to both, to the one for Faith to receive, 
and to the other for Grace to energize; and that both the powers 
established for Authority and those established for Consent are 
continually opposing His efforts, entailing every kind of disaster 
in the course of things; and that, notwithstanding this opposi¬ 
tion, God does often settle the antagonisms of the two, and makes 
the world progress to its liberty in right thinking and doing; and, 
finally, that we can not separate Authority and Grace, but the 
line of one is the line of the other. 

Having seen this union of Authority and Grace, we are al¬ 
most compelled to ask ourselves, what would be the logic of the 
situation, where Authority did not manifest God, but Grace was 
rejected and the act, or law or doctrine issued godless and wrong? 
This must of course often happen. To expect it to be otherwise, 
would be to expect men to be absolutely amenable to Heavenly 
guidance and perfectly righteous in action. Now, however hard 
it might be, to apply a corrective for such action, yet it is very 
plain that the error results from not following Grace, and not 
from absence of Grace. Man is at fault, not God. This conclu¬ 
sion does not commit us to blind following of Authority, but 
rather frees us, and sets us the task of bringing Authority back 
to the bearings of right. However, no such instance can drive 
us to deny the offer of Grace, i. e„ the presence of Grace, and that 
is the great point we must be brought to see. Once grant that 
the Authority so erring is in truth the Authority that ought to 


50 


Analytics of Church Government 


have done differently, and we grant the presence of the Grace that 
was rejected. So too, we can not assert the absence of God, work¬ 
ing for faithful acceptance, because a hearer rejects a true preach¬ 
ing of the Gospel. We are too accustomed to the thought of God 
standing at the door, for us, in either case, to doubt His effort. 
Grace in authority must therefore mean Grace present, or Grace 
offered, or Grace ready; and not Grace utilized. God will always 
be found working on both sides, but often accepted on only one, 
and sometimes indeed rejected on both for a brief period. 

A question that has all along been pending may now be taken 
up. This Grace of God that is given, is it the Grace of the Holy 
Ghost, or is it the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ? In general 
it may be said, it is the Grace of the Holy Ghost, but acting, not 
in His own special province, but as the Agent of the Head of the 
Church. It is, of course, Christ, the Head, who is governing the 
whole body, but the functions called into play for the work are the 
functions of giving wisdom, energy, thought, love, etc., and it is the 
Holy Ghost who confers these gifts. It may be indeed a narrow 
field, and an intricate task, that of discriminating between the 
work of the Holy Spirit in His own sphere, and His work as the 
Agent of Christ, but it is impossible not to see in the character 
of the work to be performed, the need of operations proper to the 
Holy Ghost, and yet, that as Christ has promised His personal 
presence to the Church, the agency of the Holy Ghost is posited. 
However, the Church is a body—Christ’s body, and there are 
“bonds” and “joints.” This fact will account for much. The 
Holy Ghost is “compacting,” forming, building the whole rough 
mass into a likeness of Christ, into a fit Bride for Him. There is, 
deep down under the surface, therefore, a sense in which it is the 
Grace of our Lord that is conveyed. Each part is a member of 
Christ, and as the effort is to make each part grow to the measure 
of Him, so also is it to make the whole reproduce Him. The 
question too arises—could this presence and work of the Holy 
Ghost go on unless the work of Christ were already complete, and 
Himself prepared to be wrought into these earthly forms, this 
earthly organization. We know that the Holy Ghost found no 
temple in man’s nature, however He might work from without 
UP 011 man’s nature, until Christ’s work was done, and the stock 


Grace in Authority ; Faith in Consent 51 

prepared for the graft, the nature for transmission. In other 
words, while the Holy Ghost can influence any organization on 
earth, yet, in the Church of Christ there are those peculiar con¬ 
ditions, which make His work there special, and this special fea¬ 
ture is, that He can work Christ into His Church, but into that 
only. 

We are thus better able to bring our ends together. Ordinar¬ 
ily we might say, that God working by the Holy Spirit can take 
any body of men, and by working upon the minds and hearts of 
the authorities for good ruling, and the minds and hearts of the 
people for good following, by playing these forces, one against the 
other, in process of time secure His own results. So He does to 
a certain extent, but let us remember that there is a difference 
even to God between the leavened and the unleavened flour. He 
leavened His Church first, that He might work with it better. We 
must not forget the leaven. If results came only because of 
method, this play of Divine forces in Authority and Consent might 
do for all bodies, but it is both method and material that makes 
the work of God in His Church progress. Therefore, our con¬ 
clusion so far is, that while the line of Authority is the line of 
Grace, it is in the sphere of God’s Church that this is essentially 
true. Or, to put it on the other side, the line of Consent is the 
line of God’s grace unto Faith, and this especially true in the 
sphere of God’s people. 

Thus we are able to discuss the difference between de facto 
and de jure governments. God undoubtedly works always with 
all governments—all organizations. He is ever striving to lead 
to order and righteousness. He is ever found working with both 
of the contending forces of Authority and Consent. A de facto 
government of Church, or State, or any other body, is a field of 
which He takes advantage instantly, and for the fullest results ob¬ 
tainable. If ever there forms in our mind a suspicion, that amid 
all the contending organized bodies of Christians, some de facto 
governments are not de jure, that condition would not preclude 
our free admission, that God works with them by the same method 
He works in the Church itself. Again too, we must remember 
that all the baptized partake of Christ, and the great bulk of 
Christian organizations, (if not each and every one, as we like to 


52 


Analytics of Church Government 


think, is composed of baptized members of Christ. A de facto 
organization of baptized members of Christ may therefore be suffi¬ 
ciently of the leavened material prepared by God for special work, 
in order to enable Him to reap large harvests of progress. The 
conditions that obtain in Consent might in very fact be complete 
for His work, but in the region of Authority there may be some 
bar. However, is it not too plain for discussion, that that which 

is both de facto and de jure -this is, par excellence, the heir to 

the glorious promise—“Lo! I am with you,” and destined to shine, 
in the end, with all the lustre of truth and righteousness. 

If, so far, the analysis has been correct, we may now turn to 
see a very simple conclusion. The term “Grace of Orders” has 
been a veritable bone of contention in the theological world, but 
is really a very harmless expression, in the light out of what has 
been said. It simply means, that, where there is valid Authority, 
there are special conditions in which God can work; that the 
proper recipient of Authority is heir to all those special prepara¬ 
tions which will enable God to come to him fullv for the worlc. 
The fitness of the recipient is not touched upon, so far as concerns 
character, ability or spirituality, for all these things are personal. 
No man may be fit for God because of personal character. The 
special things concern those preliminary conditions which enable 
God to work with Authority in His Church, as He can work no¬ 
where else. However we might think good character a better 
condition than anything else, yet it is not so. Until Christ had 
completed his work, the Spirit could not begin the special opera¬ 
tions of redeeming men by dwelling in them. Certain gifts of 
Christ to His Church, certain bonds between them come first. 
When these are complete, secure, warranted, then comes that Grace 
to Authority that takes it in all its ignorance, willfulness and sin, 
and makes it serve the purposes of God—yet only by battle. No 
law by which men receive Authority can be made that will bar 
incompetents (and an incompetent will but make God’s task the 
harder); but to say that God withholds His efforts because the in¬ 
strument is poor, is only to make us wonder what he does when 
a whole age of men is corrupt. God’s machinery, however, has 
been made for work where many incompetents exist—where all 
are incompetent to a large extent. It is the argument for greater 


Grace in Authority; Faith in Consent 53 

effort on His part; and in saying He has prepared to make use of 
bad tools, we but reiterate the law—Grace in Authority. 

It is, of course, the usual way of the world, to consider the 
matter of Church Government in the light of Authorities govern¬ 
ing for God (and so in a sense they do), but the real situation is, 
that God governs through men, grouped into the complementing 
forces of Authority and Consent, and in this view we can see, that, 
never mind what the character of those composing these two forces 
may be, God’s action is not seen in either one, necessarily, but 
only after the ultimate results from the agreement of both have 
issued. Again, the world is expecting Authority to be competent, 
only as it is ideal in character, and so worthy of God; but, we have 
seen, that God has established as the condition of His presence, 
not worthiness, but some peculiar relation to Christ. Hot, how¬ 
ever, that worthiness does not make God’s task of governing easier, 
quicker, etc., but that it does not increase His presence, or un¬ 
worthiness bar it. As we contend it should be rightly conceived, 
the Church is a special organization so linked to Christ as to be 
a special field for the work of God, by reason of those bonds; that 
God is ever in it, working as only he can work; that worthiness is 
a great aid to the success of the work, but not a condition of the 
presence. 

A perfect illustration is the presence of God in the Holy of 
Holies. The Covenant, the Temple, the Holy of Holies, the Mercy- 
seat, these were conditions of the Shekinah (the presence), but 
the obedience and faith, etc., of the authorities and the people af¬ 
fected the success of God’s work. So, too, we who are members 
of Christ, can also say we are, “Temples of the Holy Ghost; which 
is in us; which we have of God,” but we know that His presence 
there only secures the results aimed at when we cooperate with 
Him. 

It has been said, that it is true in a sense, that authorities 
govern for God, and we can, with a little thought, see to what 
extent. 

It is one of the conditions, inseparable from the nature of 
the beings whom God allows as authorities in the Church, that, 
while sitting in the seat of Authority—which Authority is expected 
to be Godlike in wisdom and work—those so placed should be all 


54 


Analytics of Church Government 


unworthy. God's settlement of the difficulty is not in telling the 
people to discriminate and judge when the Authority is right or 
wrong, but, rather, in the assumption of the task of bringing re¬ 
sults in spite of the difficulties. Having the counter force, Con¬ 
sent, and the elements of time and growth at His disposal, He 
does this, and, rather than disparage and weaken Authority, puts 
it before the world clothed with all dignity. Its government must 
be taken for God’s true will. God may dissent, work against it, 
and overthrow the decrees, judgments, laws, doctrine, acts, etc., 
but they must perforce have temporary standing as if of the fol¬ 
lowing of God. We may wonder how God can let a man, or group 
of men, who will often follow wrong, manifest ignorance, be cor¬ 
rupt, etc., stand for Him, and we may wonder how these men can 
claim to act for God, when their acts are so plainly unjust, untrue 
and corrupt, or so utterly foolish, but all of this is of the necessary 
weakness of world conditions. Men who are placed in the seat of 
Authority can only go ahead to act for God as best they are able, 
knowing that their acts will stand for His acts, and at the same 
time possibly be in fact far from having His approval. But when 
we say that God governs through men, we have the real condition 
expressed. Even those wrong acts of theirs fall into a place ap¬ 
pointed for them, and occasion His other operations. He is so 
wont to deal with just such elements that His government is 
thoroughly adapted to them. 

Reverting now, just for a moment, to the question of those 
special conditions which enable God to be present in Church Gov¬ 
ernment in special sense, it must be enough to say, that we know 
of their existence better than of their nature. Like the question 
of His presence in the temple at Jerusalem it is hard to explain. 
There can be no doubt, however, that the coming of Christ, and the 
establishment of the Church in intimate relation to Him changed 
conditions radically. 

The suggestion which arises most naturally is this. In the 
system of evolution, Force is developed from a simple form until 
we see it manifold. Matter, first in one element, becomes found 
in some sixty or more. Then, these two are united for a new phase 
of creation. Life, too, is developed, and then introduced where 
Force and Matter already are. Afterwards, Mind is introduced. 


Grace in Authority; Faith in Consent 55 

Subsequently Spirit (which in another sphere has known an evo¬ 
lution resulting in Angels), enters the region where Force, Matter, 
Life and Mind are found growing and crystalizing. Finally, another 
whole beginning is made, and God enters Creation, in order to take 
it up into God, whither its destiny has ever wrought it. Now, just 
as each phase in the series has witnessed the new erected while the 
old stands, so the new and final creation in Christ comes into 
life while the old has not passed away. God can be, and must be 
present in the final creation as in no other. In other words, the 
Church must, and does present a field for Grace as nothing else 
ever did or could dc. God did not just found the Church, but 
i3 essentially in it. Influencing all government, He is in the very 
midst of this. Church Government is not a government of, for, 
and by the people; nor of, for, and by the Authorities. IT IS OF, 
FOR, AND BY GOD. It may, like all the rest of God’s worlds move 
haltingly, and with many fallings away, towards the appointed 
goal, but no evolution amid, and by means of antithetical forces, 
ever moved more surely to the appropriate consummation than 
does the kingdom of Christ. 

It only now remains to see, that in such an organization as 
the Church, Authority and Grace can not be separated, but are 
practically convertible terms. 

If God were simply the originator of the line of Authority, 
and if He merely promised to help all those who rightly held of¬ 
fice, we would have a very different condition of things from that 
actually existent. There is a line in which God can move, and 
there is a line in which He can not move. Just as the whole 
Church is prepared for His presence in a way the governments 
of the world can not be, so, too, in its own way, the case in point. 
Just as also the conditions of Israel made a pathway for God, or 
just as the Temple and Mercy-seat, in a sense, enabled His pres¬ 
ence, so, too, is it with the case in hand. In that strange kingdom 
of God, in that mysterious body of Christ, in that new sphere for 
the processes of evolution, where not spirit-men merely are de¬ 
veloped, but God-men (Sons of God) are born and bred, there are 
lines along which God moves naturally. There are others, too, 
foreign to Him. There are lines where He moves for certain 


56 


Analytics of Church Government 


results, and there are lines reserved for other workings. This 
comes not from lack of power, of course, but from the very fit¬ 
ness of things. Thus we can conceive a mode or form of govern¬ 
ment far more adapted to His presence and workings than another 
might be. As long as that exists—and, of course, it will never 
fail—it will have His Authority or Presence as no other would or 
could—from sheer lack of adaptation. (Why do we forever con¬ 
sider Church Government as adapted to the world? Let usi think 
of it also as the pathway for God. Let us ask ourselves—what 
form best suits Him and His movements?) 

Now, in the light of this resolution of both Authority and 
Grace into the Presence of God, the whole question of the Grace 
of Orders ought to end. Where God is, Authority is, and Grace 
is; and since God comes into that which is prepared for Him, 
moves along lines adapted to Him, and abides under conditions 
peculiar to Him, our task is but to find how Authority is seated, 
in order to know where Grace abides—Authority for every function 
of the Ministry and Grace for every act. 

Wherever it really and truly is—this Authority and Grace, 
the member is subject to it, and ought to accept it. Grace, too, 
brings him into the body—“puts him there and binds him there;” 
and Faith “attracting him there should keep him there.” 

Ifaitb tn Consent 

The preceeding discussion of Grace in Authority has in very 
large measure set forth the complementary position of Faith in 
Consent, but some further discussion can not be out of place, and 
is, indeed, necessary. 

We are carried into another sphere of man’s nature when we 
pass over to this side of our discussion, namely the sphere of feel¬ 
ing. Authority, in its judgments, is primarily in need of mental 
qualities, but for Consent there is brought into play chiefly the 
emotional elements of judgment; and this arises from the very 
necessity of the respective attitudes of the two parties to the whole 
decision. Judgment, we must remember, is according to the 
whole nature of man, and must be “en epignosei Jcaipase aisthesei” 
as St. Paul suggests when he speaks to the Philippians concerning 


Grace in Authority ; Faith in Consent 57 

“love abounding more and more.” Where judgment is abstract, 
deduced from premises, sifted out according to logic, or vision of 
conditions, etc., it may stand the approval of mind and break down 
entirely before the bar of the heart. And, on the other hand, 
feeling can often dictate what the mind must disapprove. Ke- 
ligion and religious things are more subjected to this double judg¬ 
ment than anything else, and God, seeking to lift the entire man 
and all humanity, has recognized the principle most plainly. From 
the very nature of the case Authority is cut off to a very great 
degree from the judgment en pase aisthesei, but the masses of the 
people are almost shut up to this form of judgment—the judg¬ 
ment of feeling. There is absolutely no way of securing this mode 
of judgment in its full power to Authority, never mind how con¬ 
stituted. It is inherent only in the irresponsible masses. The 
very sense of responsibility destroys sensibility to it, and drives 
any rational being to dependence on his mental powers, Out where 
all sense of responsibility is taken away, feeling will rise to judge, 
and reason will hide away. The vox populi has just this merit, 
and just this defect. It is a judgment natural and necessary, but 
one-sided, and like its standard, feeling, easily biased. If Author¬ 
ity leaned to aesthetic perceptions and judgments, it would be 
disastrous to all diacritical ones, but, still, there must be some 
place for this judgment by the aesthetic man. God has located 
this judgment of the feelings in the masses, thus rendering them, 
or rather recognizing them, wholly unfit, en masse, for decisions, 
promulgations and all acts of Authority, but eminently fit as the 
testers of every thing that bears on human nature. Can not this 
indeed be said—that when the masses seek to originate, then the 
vox populi is almost sure to be wrong; but, when wisdom has 
framed its creations, and submitted them, then let it bow its ear 
to catch what the vox populi proclaims. In truth, the whole de¬ 
cision can not be rendered by either Authority or Consent alone. 
They are complementary to each other and God’s voice can only 
be known when the decree of Authority, and the agreement of the 
consenting masses unite to exhibit a heavenly harmony. 

Nothing can ever make the masses judge otherwise than by 
feeling, but, of course, the feeling takes the higher ranges as well a3 
the lower (aisihesis implies the very highest perceptive faculties 


58 


Analytics of Church Government 


outside the sphere of epignosis.) Now, the great ministrant to 
feeling is Faith, and Faith has just this marvellous adaptability to 
this sphere, out of its many spheres, that it can transmute into 
feeling every thing it brings to its possessors. If the masses are 
given to judgment by feeling, Faith is a true servant for them, for 
all things in her hands undergo her transforming touch. She 
receives hard, cold words or facts, but ere she delivers them there 
is a warmth about them that adapts them not for minds, but 
hearts. Faith is not only of Reason but of Love. She forms 
convictions; and the masses are not only full of feeling, but of 
convictions—which are opinions centred in feelings. 

So, then, the masses have a part in all decisions that are of 
God, and just as vision, and guidance, and power of action, etc., 
are needed by Authority, so this power of Faith, that brings all 
into the sphere of feeling, is a requisite of Consent. 

It was a great mistake to think that the great trouble of 
Church Government has come from Authority heedless of Grace. 
The faithless masses that refuse Consent are fully as much to 
blame. God has trouble with one as much as the other. It is 
easy to read History, and arrange whole chapters of charges against 
the rulers of the Church, but it is enough only to make also a list 
of those things done rightly, or positions correctly assumed, and 
note, at the same time, the struggles against those right things, in 
order to see how wrong the masses often were. For instance; in 
the very beginning the Church began to worship Christ as God, 
but every conceivable revolt has taken place, seeking to upset this 
action of Authority. Every one, save the last, has signally failed, 
and, through the agreement of Authority and Consent, has been 
set to rest. The last is tottering, but does not yet yield. In each 
case Consent has finally confirmed Authority, but it was “so slow 
of heart to believe,” and, taking the whole history of the struggle, 
we are won to admiration of the conduct of Authority, and to 
amazement at the opposition. In fact, if we note each general 
position ever assumed by Authority on any line, we will find, that 
never mind how right it was in the beginning, yet Authority ha9 
had to carry out its conclusions to the small ramifications of each 
subject ere battle ceased. Consent does not altogether yet admit 
that Authority was right in its settlement as to whom to baptize, 


59 


Grace in Authority; Faith in Consent 

or how to baptize; whom to ordain, or how to ordain. Authority, 
right or wrong, must do battle to-day (so faithless is Consent) over 
things that centuries ago seemed to stand settled. Here nineteen 
hundred years after Ignatius, bishop of Antioch died, these pages 
are being written to urge, that the Authority of his day knew 
what offices were continuous in the Church of God. 

But there is no use to dispute over the relative blame belong¬ 
ing to Authority or Consent. By means of their struggle to con¬ 
clusions, things have been wrought better than if by their peace 
at the beginning, and what things are not yet worked out, doubt¬ 
less need further definition. Faith, too, is very nearly man’s 
severest test. When he masters that he will be in possession of 
Love also. Men believed not Moses. They believed not Christ. 
The Faith which is to “attract men to the Church, and keep them 
there ” is the kind that moves mountains. 

Finally, it is impossible not to see, what tremendous power 
resides in the masses when vested with the veto power. Let us 
recall what was said before, that the veto power of a ruler is but 
technical (and yet even then it is of great weight), but the veto 
power of the masses in the Church is measureless, because it is 
of nature and ineradicable. It is a fair match for all the powers 
of Authority. Every decree of Authority must move the mass. 
If, on the other hand, the inertia of the mass is not overcome, 
there is a veto. So, as we read history, we behold more tasks un¬ 
dertaken by Authority than accomplished, and more rusty and ex¬ 
ploded canons than we like to look upon. So, then, on the one 
hand, inertia works a veto, and on the other, it takes Faith to 
work consent. Do we sympathize with poor weak Authority, or 
de we pity this mighty giant? 


CHAPTER IV 


ministerial ©ffice ant) tbe apportionment 
of functions 

Just as a view of government in general helped us greatly to 
the discussion of Church Government, in the last two chapters, so 
now, the discussion of Ministerial office in its general hearings 
will help us, when we come to narrow T our view to the office of the 
Christian Ministry. On that account we now proceed to consider 
the range of the works and powers which, from the nature of the 
case, appertain to ministration in religious office. 

Fetichism reaches only to the conception of power or powers 
in the invisible realms, but as soon as the idea of a god, a personal 
being emerges, then there also comes the idea of a ministry, in 
place of the idea of a “medicine man” or charmer. The function 
of the medicine man can remain as vague as the conception of 
the powers above are vague, but with a ministry comes a differenti¬ 
ation of functions that brings an end to the former indefiniteness. 
It is not impossible that something like a ministry can exist, even 
while the idea of mysterious power has not yet passed to the de¬ 
finiteness that pictures that idea in the form of a god, but the 
limited character of the functions exhibited in Fetich service, is 
due to the limitation of ideas concerning God. As civilization 
advances, the idea of a god emerges, but not in the form of one 
god, but of many gods. The idea of one god is itself the sign of 
minds further removed from the savage period, or at least unre- 
flective conditions. But with the idea of definiteness in Deity, 
comes definiteness as to the service, and therefore also the minis¬ 
ters of Deity. Each god must have his spokesman, and also the 
receiver of things brought as offerings to the god, and these two 
functions naturally would tend to divide and become located in 
different men. They might indeed remain in the one minister, 
but they might not, and historical'y did not. Another function 
would also emerge. In the relation of this or these servitors of 
the god to the people adhering to that particular god, and mani- 


Ministerial Office and Apportionment of Functions 61 

testing adherence by obedience, or by offerings, or both, the posi¬ 
tion of authority of some nature over these people would come as 
a matter of course. Prophecy, Ministration, Rule, nothing could 
keep back this threefold development of function when once the 
idea of a god appeared plainly in the minds of men. The loca¬ 
tion of them, and the development of them is another matter, 
but the existence of these three functions of service is not only 
necessary, but is historical?'/ a fact seen among all the worshippers 
of gods. Especially, it may be said, is the employment of pro¬ 
phetical functions a sign of the advance of ideas concerning God. 
As long as only vague powers are believed in, no men seem to dare 
to stand out as spokesmen for them, even though they undertake 
a general kind of propitiation; and the assumption of this office is 
a token that ideas of Deity are advancing. 

If the office of Prophecy is combined with that of Ministra¬ 
tion, the powers of Rule, whatever they be, settle naturally there 
also, but if the two be divided, and apportioned to separate orders 
of men, then, naturally, there ensues a struggle for the attachment 
of ruling powers to the one or the other; though, generally, such 
struggle inclines to centre the rule in the ministering order. The 
ruling powers grow out of the possession of the others, and it has 
seldom, if ever, been seen, that ruling officers exist as a third and 
independent order. Of course, we can see how great an advan¬ 
tage the ministering order would have in any struggle with the 
prophetical. In fact, there is something inherent in the work 
proper to this order of prophets that isolates them, while, on the 
other hand, the usual functions of ministration would tend directly 
to throw power into the hands of the ministrants. In fact, among 
all the ancient civilized peoples, especially Babylonians and 
Egyptians, we find the prophetical office possessed of very little 
power of rule, and always this power tending to accumulate in the 
hands of the ministering order, until it is able to contend even 
with the State for dominion over the masses of the people, setting 
ecclesiastical against secular authority in a way which has so often 
made history. 

Prophet, Priest and King has been the title looming in the 
distance before every ministry of every god of every people, and 
more or less progress has ever been made towards the grasping of 


62 


Analytics of Church Government 


it. This has been because these are the natural lines of ministra¬ 
tion, and because the goal of desire is ever that which it is possible 
to make real. The Priest has been the one most able to pursue 
the course of power, and he has seldom failed to try to absorb even 
the prophetical office, if not by personal assumption, yet by locat¬ 
ing it in the ecclesiastical body at large, or somewhere under the 
priestly control. 

There are no other functions of the ministering office than 
these of Prophecy, Ministration, and Rule (though the teaching 
office will be noticed hereafter as a development of the Prophetical, 
and Rule has a line of division into—Rule proper, and the Care 
of souls). They may be combined, or taken separately, but there 
are no others that naturally grow out of the very nature of the 
thing, and all these are indeed so proper to it as to appear invari¬ 
ably wherever the worship of a god exists. 

When, therefore, Christianity comes upon the scene, we may 
examine, and see if it violates, or transcends, or falls under the 
rule. We will naturally expect differences in the arrangement of 
these functions, and differences of the degree to which the powers 
of each division are carried, but after making an examination of 
all the ministerial scheme or system, we will not expect to find 
the natural functions of ministration lessened or increased; for 
reason forbids that there should not be a minister of word, and a 
minister of worship, and that some degree of rule should not ac¬ 
crue of natural right to one or both. As a matter of fact, the 
same ideal of Prophet, Priest and King is not only held, but real¬ 
ized, in the very founder of the system. 

Ministration, then, under analysis, and in history, falls into 
the three heads as above given, and we may pass to consider the 
natural reach and limit of the office of prophecy, ministration 
proper, and rule. 

First, then—As to Prophecy. The worshipper of a god was 
obliged to tell something about his god. That compelled him to 
either speak himself for that god, or to quote someone as speaking. 
In the war of men on behalf of their particular god, it could not 
but be that the god himself must be made to speak somehow. So 
also, in every effort to persuade men to action under the influence 
of religion, oracles, or dreams, or visions of seers, or direct mes- 


Ministerial Office and Apportionment of Functions 63 


sages must be pleaded. “Thus saith - ■” must be the logical 

resort of the one desirous of persuading. 

But, after this first origin, there could be very little develop¬ 
ment (until the time of the Schools of Prophetical Teachers). 
The working out of effects could only be accomplished by the na¬ 
ture of the message, or the manner of its delivery, powerful,,mys¬ 
terious, dramatic or anything else, as the case might be; or, by 
some personal quality in the character or influence of the prophet. 
There was no room for degrees of office in the sphere of prophecy. 
It was too personal to admit of being divided and apportioned, and 
so it remained throughout the history of heathendom, and when 
Israel came there was no change, for there could be none. It is 
an office of parity, knowing no degrees or orders, and gathering 
honor and respect, not for the order, but for the man. The truth, 
or seeming truth, of a message is worth more than all else, and the 
humblest might have this as well as the most exalted. The na¬ 
ture of things barred out gradations by their own force. Only in 
combination could it aspire to more, i. e., only by borrowing from 
one of the other functions of ministration. Our Lord combined 
it in His Church with both of the others, and so we have rather 
lost sight of the fact, that there is no room for degrees of order 
among prophets, springing out of their own functions. 

The prophetical office, too, is, by a natural antagonism, op¬ 
posed to that of ministration proper, if the two are separate. All 
through History this is seen, especially Jewish History. Hot only 
did the Master gain honor for the prophetical office by combining 
it with the others, but He at one stroke ended the old bitter war¬ 
fare between them (though He thereby put them as two tendencies, 
to battle still for leadership within the narrower sphere). 

Secondly—As to Ministration proper. How far the Charm- 
worker, with his incantations, could be considered a ministrant, 
we need not discuss, for it was at such an early period that man 
began to worship gods (in the personal sense of the term god), 
and it is so characteristic of the intelligent races to do so, that 
we need not go back to analyze the passage from the lesser to the 
greater conception of religion. Given the conception of a god, and 
his worship will be led or directed by a ministrant. Offerings, 
dues, sacrifices, rites and ceremonies open a large field for this 



64 


Analytics of Church Government 


side of religious office. Family religion can be content with oc¬ 
casional assumptions of official duties by the head, but, if religion 
should become common to the masses, some ministrant in common 
relation to all would be a necessity. This is, of course, historically, 
as well as rationally true. 

Now let us observe, how, in direct contradistinction to the 
prophetical office, which was incapable of development into degrees, 
the office of ministration necessarily, or certainly, at the least, 
very naturally developed those degrees, wherever found. Essenti¬ 
ally it was an office of service, and the services or worK would 
naturally fall into classes. Equality was almost an impossibility. 
There would surely be preparatory work, and there could be spe¬ 
cial work; while the general need and demand for the typical work 
would regulate the general character of the ministrations. De¬ 
grees of attendants variously entrusted with minor tasks, an order 
of regular ministrants, and higher still a small number charged 
with occasional and exceptional duties of special significance would 
of necessity, as it were, arise. A threefold ministry has been 
found everywhere that ministry has been found, simply because 
the special and occasional, and the regular and frequent acts of 
worship called for different treatment; and because preparatory 
work must always be done, and yet be of a nature little comporting 
in the minds of men with the dignity with which the higher work 
was vested, even though itself of a sacred character, and not to be 
assigned to untrained or unprepared hands. Possibly, by effort 
a parity in ministration might exist, but division into orders of 
ministrants is as natural as sunrise and sunset. 

While it was the function of the prophetical office to speak 
for Deity, all functions of worship pertained to the office of minis¬ 
tration. These would begin at the lowest and ascend to the high¬ 
est; and from a simple cleansing of hands that might be stretched 
out in supplication, and all the way through the speaking of words, 
up to the celebration of elaborate rites of sacrifice and offerings, 
the gamut of ministration would run. It is necessary, indeed, to 
observe the wide range of ministration. Every thing on one whole 
side of sacred office is ranged under the head of ministration. 
Just as the prophetical side of things is clearly marked, so also 
the ministrant side. The ministry of word exists, as well as the 


Ministerial Office and Apportionment of Functions 65 

ministry of acts. The breadth of the ministering office must be 
clearly seen, because of a narrowing tendency that has run through 
History, in consequence of the prominence of one or two particular 
acts of ministration characteristic of all ancient systems of wor¬ 
ship. These concerned the offerings of victims in sacrificial rites, 
and the offerings of other gifts in divine worship. They were so 
characteristic and so unique, so confined to religious service, as to 
give distinct tone and color to the whole life or work of ministra¬ 
tion, and indeed to blot out almost every other tone or color. Thus 
the hiereus , meaning originally “one in sacred office,” became so 
entirely in men’s minds to mean a “sacrifieer of victims,” that to 
this day it conveys that idea, even in languages in which it is a loan 
word. Undoubtedly it was general in its meaning, and became 
limited because the prominent function in ancient worship was 
the act of sacrificing. That is all natural enough, but it would not 
do, in any full survey of the different sides of sacred office, to limit 
our thought of the side of ministration to one function, which was 
not the only one, however, typical and universal it may have been 
in any or all ages. 

The function of speaking words in worship—offering prayers 
is as clearly a function on the side of ministration as that of offer¬ 
ing gifts or sacrifices. If the minister was evolved from the en¬ 
chanter or charm-worker—the utterer of incantations, this is 
seen to be a natural growth, and on all grounds of reason we see 
the same thing. The prophet, with his message from the god, 
occupies one whole side, while the one who brings the peoples’ 
words or offerings to the gods stands on the other. 

However, there is one point in this connection to be looked 
into, and that is the function of blessing. It evidently, in its na¬ 
ture, belongs to both sides, seeming to spring directly out of pro¬ 
phetical functions, and yet to so depend on conditions manifested 
at times of worship, and almost inseparable from them (as, for 
instance, when repentance has been exhibited by adequate sacri¬ 
fices), that we are not surprised to find that, historically, this func¬ 
tion has accrued to the side of ministration. Again, a special 
blessing might belong to the prophet, but those which were general, 
and in some degree perfunctory, i. e., following definite acts, 
naturally fell to be included as duties rather than gifts; debts due 


66 


Analytics of Church Government 


the people, because pledged on conditions, rather than signs of 
particular grace and mercy. 

The three degrees existing in the office of ministration we have 
seen arose naturally. Preparatory, regular, and special work was 
a necessity of the case. Now, it could not but be that the special 
should take precedence. Coming at times of great solemnity, and 
rising above the ordinary in the minds of all, these special acts 
would demand special men, endowed with special powers. Cir¬ 
cumstances might well differ in marking out the particular func¬ 
tions assigned to the chief ministrants. From the standpoint of 
ministration, their functions might not be, inherently, any more 
honorable than that of the general officiant, but, being made spe¬ 
cial because rare, grew to greater honor just on that account. But, 
again, it might be that the highest reach of worship should be 
made occasional, and placed in these special hands alone, and thus 
mark the office as distinct in degree or order, and not simply con¬ 
spicuous by the occasion. 

But, after all, we must remember, that the third power— 
that of Rule, could be united to the functions of Ministration, and 
help to elevate the ones entrusted with special acts to the position 
of special honor, at the same time making a distinction of degree 
or order by means of this union. 

Thirdly—As to Rule. Here, again, we see an opportunity 
for separation into degrees or orders, but first let us glance at the 
origin of Rule in a body of worshippers. This power springs out 
of that of ministration rather than that of prophecy; for the 
charm-worker exists before the prophet, and powers of rule exist 
even with the charm-worker. As he developed into the minister 
of a particular god, he did not lose his control. However, when 
the prophet of the god appears, he can easily bring under control 
the worshippers of that god, and either antagonize or increase the 
authority of the minister. His power would be personal, variant 
and proportioned to his message, while that of the minister would 
be official, constant and proportioned to the worshipper’s own de¬ 
voutness rather than any quality in the minister. The prophet’s 
power could hardly be regulated by law or custom, but that of the 
minister would naturally look, for regulation, to these things. 
In any struggle between the two, the minister would have vast 


Ministerial Office and Apportionment of Functions 67 

advantage in the regular order of things, though temporarily the 
power of a prophet might rise to great height. Islam presents 
the acme of power lodged in the prophets, and brings into high 
relief the full workings of a system that exalts prophecy and mini- 
imizes ministration, to the last degree possible among men. Is¬ 
rael’s history presents wonderful battle ground for the working out 
of the study of the effects of prophetical and priestly rule, and 
the warfare between them. But Christianity exhibits the most in¬ 
tricate and interesting study of all, because of the union of high 
prophetical gifts and well developed functions of ministry in 
the same officials, and, at the same time, opportunities of rule 
that have enabled a papacy to crown the preliminary work of a 
Roman Empire. 

Rule, as we have said, allows of degrees as well as ministry. 
It is sometimes to be measured according to territory, and some¬ 
times according to specific function. It is the latter that con¬ 
cerns us chiefly, for while an episcopos of a parish may be only 
an elder, and an episcopos of a number of parishes—or diocese— 
may be an apostle, yet, since the latter must be an episcopos of 
episcopoi, we are thereby carried into the region of function rather 
than territory. 

Rule may have many degrees, theoretically, but if vested in 
officials already divided into degrees, by virtue of their functions, 
it is natural for it to settle into the same degree. The addition, 
however, of rule as a function of various offices will of itself help 
tc define these offices, and, as we saw under the head of ministra¬ 
tion, it may be the union of special functions of ministration 
with special powers of rule that elevates one office over another. 

In the Christian ministry, we would infer from the gift of 
prophecy, a parity of orders; from powers of rule, we could sup¬ 
pose a large number; but, if it should be true that there were 
in the sphere of ministration a preparatory, a regular and a 
special grade or order, then that threefold division would natural¬ 
ly be the determining factor, crvstalizing the rest. The rule 
would naturally settle down into such a division of itself. Pro¬ 
phecy could adapt itself to the three as well as to one, simply 
knowing no change or division internally, and held as an entire 
function by each. Rule might try to make more than three bv 


68 


Analytics of Church Government 


stretching out functions of ministration beyond the natural limit, 
but if the other stood firm, there would be no difficulty about the 
accommodation of Rule to that settlement. 

It should be noted just in passing, for the sake of exactness, 
that preparatory work or function is capable itself of being di¬ 
vided. There were, besides Levites, drawers of water and car¬ 
riers of ashes, etc., but no purpose would be served by going 
into the matter of minor divisions in the field of preparatory or 
assisting work. 

It is now necessary to go into another matter of some im¬ 
portance, viz.: that concerning the Authority by which each of 
the three functions of religious office is carried on. 

The prophet, of course, must have this authority from the 
divinity whose prophet he claims to be. His work depends on his 
message, and that on its being a message from the god, or some¬ 
thing authoritively spoken in the god’s behalf. It would be incredi¬ 
ble that any other source of Authority should take the place of 
this. Oracle, dream, vision, revelation or exposition—all would 
fall to the ground without the connection as to authority being 
recognized. The people could not designate a representative from 
themselves to whom the god must give his messages. The whole 
process is the other way. The fl Treacher” must be “sent/* 

In the field of ministration, the case is different. The 
rational origin of ministration brings in the representative idea 
very strongly. All men must worship, all need to offer for sin; 
but all men are not in condition for holy exercises. The special 
cleansings and special training can not pertain to all, nor can 
all men speak the prayers in common worship. The force of cir¬ 
cumstances it would be natural, if not absolutely necessary, to 
have a spokesman, a delegate, a representative, who, keeping him¬ 
self always prepared for solemn rite and offering, and trained in 
all the details of the ceremonies, could act for the masses. But, 
on the other hand, while this is plain enough, it is not to be lost 
sight of that some connection between this their representative 
and their special divinity must be established. The God could 
send a prophet with his message without any previous recogni¬ 
tion of the prophet by the people, and altogether independently 
of their approval ; but we can not suppose the same condition on 


Ministerial Office and Apportionment of Functions 69 

the ministrant side. The people could hardly, in their offerings 
to the god, leave out of sight the warranty of acceptance. So 
we find the minister, as well as the prophet, claiming to belong 
to the god, and to receive power and authority from him. The 
people’s authority is looked upon as altogether secondary how¬ 
ever existant, but the prime consideration is that the minister 
be recognized by the god as his servant. In the absence of any 
definite designation by the god, certain ways or methods of reach¬ 
ing conclusions, which were assumed to be acceptable to the 
god, have always prevailed, and the one so selected and set apart 
has been regarded as vested by the god with authority. It is 
hard to conceive how authority in the ministry could have stood 
the various attacks made upon it, were it not for this connection 
on the one side with the people, and on the other with the god. His¬ 
torically, indeed, the office of ministrant was developed among 
peoples who had but little idea of authority as derived from the 
side of representation, but who had most pronounced idea con¬ 
cerning the authority received from the god in whose service the 
man enlisted, or was placed. And, rationally, however, much 
we may see a power derived from that position of representation, 
yet we are driven to recognize an authority given, or assumed to 
be given, from above, as reaching its claims into the very heart 
of the situation. 

Coming to consider the authority for Rule, we see that ulti¬ 
mately it too must rest on the god as its source. Rule grows, 
as we have before noted, out of both prophecy and ministry, and 
attaches itself more particularly to ministry, because that is most 
capable of holding and exercising it; but, it requires for its effec¬ 
tiveness and security, to be based on an authority at least equal 
to that of prophecy or ministration. If it fall below these it 
will mar, instead of helping them, for it has ever a special bat¬ 
tle to fight. But, both of the others reach up to the god for 
their efficiency, and so it must also be with this third function 
of religious office. 

How does the Christian system agree with these general 
features of ministration? 

We find, of course, the threefold division into prophecy, min¬ 
istration and rule. Christ is Prophet, Priest and King. His 


70 


Analytics of Church Government 


Apostles were told to preach, to baptize and to bless and break 
the bread in memorial rite, and to organize and govern tfie church. 
The divisions are as plain here as anywhere. There are no more 
and no less than elsewhere. But they are all concentrated in 
one and the same persons. The prophetical and ministrant offices 
are blended, and the ruling powers natural to both functions con¬ 
firmed to the combination. It is of marked significance too, 
that the choice of names for the offices should so largely lean to 
the functions of Rule, as we see in the Biblical Episcopos, and 
Presbuteros, and even Apostolos (Delegate), rathen than to those 
of preaching and ministration. The term Diaconos falls in line 
with ministration, and Apostolos (taken as—Herald) looks to the 
side of preaching. 

The status of authority for the various powers is similar also 
to our former conclusions. The prophetical office is said dis¬ 
tinctly to be the office of an ambassador. The baptizer is di¬ 
rected to say, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost;” and the place of the blesser and breaker 
of the broad, held by the Master at the Last Supper, is by him¬ 
self directly assigned to the future ministrants of that Memorial. 
Finally, the powers of rule are bestowed in set terms, and made 
to depend on the Fathers gift of them to the Son. So that, as 
far as authority that reaches Heavenwards is concerned, the uni¬ 
versal rule here holds in full power. But the representative 
character of the ministry is not denied, but asserted, and the 
ministry for all its dignity and authority is clearly stated to be 
the servant of the people, who are all to be workers, priests and 
proclaimers of the self same message; and who are to haver low¬ 
ers of election and powers of council. 

As to the agreement in functions of the threefold office with 
the functions of the same offices in all religions, it will be well 
to run through the discussion of the point. 

The Prophetical office is more clearly defined in the Chris¬ 
tian system because of there being a Book of Revelation. Ora¬ 
cles, dreams, etc., are cast aside. The Book is full of all neces¬ 
sary message. The insight of the seer, and the wisdom of a 


Ministerial Office and Apportionment of Functions 71 

then, with the Book in hand, the data for a very real and effec¬ 
tual prophecy are exhibited. 

The offices of Ministration in the system of the Master have 
in general the same functions we find elsewhere. There is 
prayer, and rite, and blessing in it, as in all. Differences there 
must be, but the sphere filled is very much the same, reaching 
up from leading in prayer, or praying as the spokesman of many, 
through the reception, or, it may be, the offering of alms, to 
the standing an Christ’s former place in breaking the bread 
memorially, or the laying on of hands for Cod and man in the 
rite of ordination. 

The main point presenting itself for discussion is that of 
the offering of sacrifice. This was the most typical function of min¬ 
istry under all the systems that went before. Now, the word 
Priest has been used so much, in the English language, to de¬ 
scribe the minister of sacrifice, that the use of it to describe a 
minister under the Christian dispensation is very objectionable to 
some, so let us get it out of the way. It is harmless of itself, 
being presbyter written short (which word Presbyter comes over 
from the side of Rule, and is not taken from that of ministra¬ 
tion), but if it be loaded with ideas not proper to it, there can 
be great confusion produced. The word hiereus is another loaded 
word, and in the combination Hierarchy, or Hieratical, etc., stands 
with some for great execution. So, too, the word Sacerdos has 
imported meanings. All of them mean simply—The religious 
official on the side of Ministration—a “Minister of Sacred things. ” 
These things were so often bloody sacrifices that it is hard to 
keep the idea of “Sacrificed * out of mind, when any one of 
them is used. Even the innocent—Priest, having been used for 
an Old Testament priest, can not be kept innocent. Of course, 
the offence enters because of the dispute over the nature of the 
Lord’s Supper, as to whether it has the nature of sacrifice. To 
use the word, Priest, is to seem to teach that it has: but, as it 
is in no wise necessary to discuss the nature of the Lord’s Sup¬ 
per here; let us dismiss the whole use of the word, priest. Min¬ 
ister is just as good (except, of course, it does not expressly in¬ 
dicate the order of Presbyter), and it comes to us with clear 
meaning, and unloaded with disputed ideas. 


72 


Analytics of Church Government 


When, therefore, the offering of bloody sacrifice ceased, what 
effect did it have on ministration? It did not canse it to cease. 
Bloody sacrifice was only one function of the ministrant or min¬ 
ister. He did not cease to be a minister as long as the other 
functions remained. Then, too, the blessing of bread and wine, 
and giving it to be eaten in memory of the death of Christ stands 
on the ministrant side of things as clearly as the offering of an 
animal to prefigure that death. If this took the place of the 
other (calling one a memorial, and the other a sacrifice, if we 
please), then the gap seems filled. But, whether filled or not, the 
analysis is the same, which is to the effect that the passing of a 
sacrificer of animals did not blot out ministration. In Heathen, 
Jewish and Christian ministries there was common to all, the per¬ 
forming of initiatory rites, offering prayers, reception of alms or 
gifts (and often offering them), conduct of worship, blessing, or¬ 
daining or setting apart for office, and the performance of a sym¬ 
bolical rite which in the one case was an animal sacrifice, and in 
the other was a memorial of the death of the Lamb of God. 

When we come to the function of Buie, we find no great 
differences. The whole field of religious government is covered 
by all systems, as far as circumstances allow. It embraces regu¬ 
lation of worship and ecclesiastical order, stretches somewhat into 
social and economical life, and trenches narrowly upon civil rule, 
by force of the confusion of the spheres. The changes that our 
Lord made are very noteworthy. He did not decrease power or 
sphere; He rather increased both. But He changed the atmos¬ 
phere. It were too much now to go into the proof of this, but 
any one taking the gifts of powers to the Apostles, on the one 
hand, on the other, reading into them His words on their personal 
bearing and the manner of their service, can see for himself. In 
a word, He used stupendous phrases concerning their binding 
and loosing,” etc., but surrounded all with an atmosphere of 
meekness and humility that strikes at the root of the old ideas of 
ecclesiastical rule. 

The object of all this analysis has been to detach the function 
of ministration proper from those of prophecy and rule, so as to 
exhibit it by itself, and discuss it in relation to the Christian 
Ministry; and then, when its powers, and sources of authority 


Ministerial Office and Apportionment of Functions 73 

for those powers are plainly recognized, to show how, when such 
office of ministration, with its natural tendency to preparatory, 
regular and special grades, is combined with prophecy and rule in 
one ministry, the dominance of ministration will naturally con¬ 
trol both of the others. Thus there is, as we have seen, a tend¬ 
ency exhibited by the Prophetical office to cause parity in the 
ministry; while, in the case of Rule, there is a power of accom¬ 
modation and a waiting on circumstances and conditions; but as 
to Ministration, its divisions are so natural as almost to be of ne¬ 
cessity. And so, therefore, when all were combined, we would 
look for the Christian ministry to exhibit the full effects of this 
element in its construction, overruling the tendency of Prophecy, 
and shaping pliable Rule. (But it must not be forgotten, that 
Rule itself had tendencies towards the same divisions as those we 
have traced in Ministration). 

It was also of importance to see that the different kinds of 
ministrations in the Christian worship did not differ from those 
common to all worship as much as we might think without taking 
care to analyze the two. 

We read in History how Turanian worship, in the region of 
the Euphrates, prepared the way for Cushite and Semitic, which 
in turn fallowed the ground for the very similar usages of the 
Mosaic, and how this latter made the matrix for that established 
by Christ and His Apostles. It all hangs together like a line of 
evolution—old skeletons modified, and clothed upon, and gifted 
with ampler life, but to the utmost reach revealing old origin, and 
gradual passage from low to high. It may at first seem strange 
that Melchizedech, of the time of Abraham, so much resembled 
Gudea of Nergulla, living some thousand years before him, and 
that Christ came to a ministry “after the order of Melchizedech” 
who lived so long previous to His own advent, but these reflec¬ 
tions are not strange to the thinker. Ministration is like the 
order of vertibrates that adapts the same general type of struc¬ 
ture to life in air, or earth, or water. 


CHAPTER V 


©fffctal authority b\> Haw tbat ts Iknown 

We have now seen something of a ministry of Grace and 
Authority, and something of the powerful function of Consent 
dependent on God’s workings in the sphere of Faith. We have 
also seen how each and every function of religious office becomes 
apportioned in accordance with the natural orders or degrees 
existent in ministration proper. And, finally, we have seen that 
behind all ministry, whether of prophecy, ministration or rule, 
there is claimed the authority, of God. We come naturally, then, 
in this chapter, to reflect upon the nature of Authority, and its 
passage to those holding it as delegates. 

In the chapter on Authority and Consent we endeavored to 
show how Authority in the Church was the presence of God, 
which presence also assured Grace. And, certainly, that analysis 
is true, when we consider, as we ought, the deepest essence of 
these matters. But Authority often appears in ordinary garb as 
simply personal authorization, i. e., having the substance of a 
word, rather than that of a thing. The human conditions and 
earthly methods impress us more than the Divine. Let us take, 
for instance, the sentence which our Lord spake—“Go ye there- 
fore * * * * Lo! I am with you always.” It is easy to carry in 
our mind the authority conferred by the words, “Go etc.,” but 
the authority of that “constant presence” is not so easily realized, 
although from God’s side, that must be the very substance of the 
authorization. 

How, then, if we can see the truth of the Presence, it may 
be safe to follow the easier way and run along the line of verbal 
commission, but certainly we ought to see that, though verbal 
commission may be more analogous to earthly affairs, yet the 
gracious reality of the Presence is peculiarly of God. 

However, in either case, it is equally plain that the commis¬ 
sion must have God as its content. God could simply say, “Go,” 
but every one else must say—God says, “Go.” How to carry this 
personality of God through all commissions for ministry is the 
problem. 


Official Authority by Law that is Known 75 

It is very easy then to see that there will appear some law 
(by which the gift will not only be bestowed, but by which it will 
be guarded); for the very nature of the case demands a law, and 
furthermore God always works by law, not only because of some¬ 
thing special in the case before Him, but simply because of His own 
nature, which is the nature of law and order. It would be another 
matter to say how far the details of the law must originate with 
God, for He is known to adapt His gifts to earthly conditions and 
powers of reception; but of this we may be sure—the path of God, 
or of His Authority will be orderly and regular. Nothing is plainer 
in Nature than both the flexibility and inflexibility of God’s 
workings. Having given man a field of action, He adapts His 
own working in that field to the liberty bestowed on man; but, 
on the other hand, if man does not have respect unto certain work¬ 
ings of God surrounding and running in and out all through that 
field—certain inflexible laws conditioning the whole, he will al¬ 
together fail. Because, then, it is plain that there must be a 
law, it does not follow that a certain liberty of action, within this 
sphere of man’s life and interests, is not freely granted. The 
point cannot be that we must look for a law, every detail of which 
originates with God, but that there must be within the region a 
law of God conditioning the whole. 

Let us take an illustration. God creates man and woman 
and says simply—“Be fruitful and multiply.” Here under the 
bestowal of greatest liberty, we have a reality of under-running 
law that of necessity conditions the whole. Vitality is of God 
only, and is by law and order, but the marriage laws that men 
have made have been very various, and all of them have, for a 
while at least, carried the vitality which is of God along with 
them. Yet, after all, is not the test of every custom of man in 
this field the original laws of God concerning vitality. Poly¬ 
gamy, polyandry, concubinage, free-love, divorce—all stand in the 
way of fruitfulness, and the posession of the earth. The great 
law hedges around the field, and runs all through it. The details 
will, through experience, settle to the law. God will go with 
man in the details, as man arranges them, for the very purpose 
ultimately bringing those details to settle to the law underlying 
all. 


76 


Analytics of Church Government 


So, in Church Government—in the law concerning Minis¬ 
tration, Prophecy, Ruling, God may only give by His own law the 
vitality, and leave man to the experiments of details, going with 
them, of course, in their region of liberty, until they, having tried 
all, settle down to such details as are most in accord with the 
fundamental principles. Nevertheless, even as in the case of 
marriage, there are, likely enough, witnesses all along the line, 
even from the beginning, to a certain train of details most har¬ 
monious to the underlying laws of vitality. But woe unto the 
ones who in their liberty concerning details actually break the 
law of vitality (or authority) itself. 

With these ideas kept in view, we can go back to the conclu¬ 
sion reached awhile back, that, since God works by law, and the 
case demands a law, there must, therefore, be a law; with minds 
guarded against thinking that such a law must be one extending 
to the uttermost limit of detail. It is true that it might be the 
simple fact that, in Church Government, God determined, and 
revealed the whole entire “Form of the Christian Temple/ ’ but 
it is not needful to contend for so much. If God only gave Au¬ 
thority (or let us call it Vitality), that is enough. The Church 
needs to experiment somewhat, for experience settles to the law 
in the end. It is good too for men to have a part with God, and 
even to be creators in their sphere. It does us good to see the 
Apostles stumbling, as it were, upon the need of deacons, and 
making deacons, not because of any pattern in the Mount that 
we know of, but through prayerful judgment. And again, Au¬ 
thority has its own principles as much as Vitality. It will make 
itself felt. Its lack can only be death. Its violation must be¬ 
come disease. The weakening of it tend to impotence. 

So then, whether either view should be taken, viz: that the 
entire form is prescribed (or for that matter a part), or that 
simply, Authority is so given as to become the basis of all, there 
is no avoiding the conclusion that there is a law attaching to this 
Authority and its gift. Afterward can come discussion of how 
far God’s law enters into details; it is enough now to see that 
official Authority is by law. 

The matter must now be carried further. The law must be 
known. The nature of the acts to be done in accordance with 
the law absolutely demand this. There are some laws known 


Official Authority by Law that is Known 77 


only to God, and some only discovered to man by intricate re¬ 
search, but there are others so essential to primary forms of con¬ 
duct that it can not be thought that they could lie concealed from 
man, who is compelled to act under them, or to put them into 
effect. It can well be that not all the law is requisite to the 
knowledge man must possess, and it may also be, as in the case 
of gravitation, that practical knowledge rather than formal is 
required, but certain it is, that in such a case as that of Minis¬ 
terial Authority, it is a primary necessity that man know how 
to obtain God’s grant. This can not be a case where it suffices 
that God works by a law known to Himself. It is man that must 
seek and obtain authority for acts bound up with the life and 
even welfare of the world. He must know how to obtain, and 
also the fact, when it occurs, that he has obtained, and now pos¬ 
sesses God’s Authority. And, furthermore, others must know, as 
well as he, the fact of his authorization. There is no more chance 
to avoid the conclusion that the law is known than there is to 
deny that there is a law. 

When, now, it is added that the law if known at all by 
man, must be known by the Church, i. e., the Society that occu¬ 
pies the field where this Authority is to be exercised, the position 
is but planted on a truism. Given the world to convert by word 
and ministration, in the name of God, and by His grace and au¬ 
thority, She' could not move a step for baptism or instruction 
without Authority, and needing to send out thousands of tongues 
and hands in God’s own name, she would be powerless for her 
work, did she not know how to commission them, or, to put it 
different^, enable them to be commissioned. 

All of this is very comforting. A law? A law that is 
known? A law that is known by the Church? Yes! This 
much is certain. And, therefore, the task of men is not the hope¬ 
less task of ascending into Heaven for its secrets, but rather that 
of brushing away obscurities raised like dust in the course of re¬ 
peated plowing over the ground. And, in fact, our satisfaction 
can be still greater, as will be seen from the following considera¬ 
tion. 

The practical demands of each age for the gift by God of 
His Authority for the work of prophecy, ministration and ruling 


78 


Analytics of Church Government 


are the same. Each age must know how to obtain authority for 
the work lying before it. It is not enough, then, to say the 
law of its gift was once known, but it must be insisted that each 
age must know. If Authority was only once given, succeeding 
ages might well forget how it came, but if it must be always 
given, then each age must know the law of its granting. Con¬ 
tinuity of law and continuity of knowledge are alike to be predi¬ 
cated. Only on the supposition that the authority was given in 
one way and continued in another, can it be admissible to allow 
that each succeeding age could lose sight of the law by which it 
first came. But, it is worth remark, the dispute of different 
Christian bodies is not concerning the original grant as much as 
concerning the manner of its continuance. However, if there 
was a change, that change must be known as well as the law, as 
it was; and the law as it came to be. The continuity of the 
same, one and only law may be questioned, but surely not the 
continuity of knowledge. The simple necessity that in each age 
the Church must send out men in God’s name cuts off all thought 
of ignorance concerning the way to send them. Of course, 
knowledge does not prevent dispute. Some would have it, that 
for ages the Church did not know how to initiate a member. We 
can not prevent such fatuity among men, but we can certainly 
draw back to the citadel of reason and proper modesty. The bur¬ 
den of knowing may not rest upon us or any other one man, but 
the Church of God would be lost if She did not know how to 
make members and officers. God set Her a task and gave Her 
grace for it. To err would be but natural for human nature, 
but to lose knowledge in such matters as the initiation of mem¬ 
bers and the making of officers would strike at the root of Her 
very life. It is pre-eminently safe to say the law of God is knowu 
in every age. Continuity of any one law may be a proper matter 
for discussion, but continuity of knowledge no more so than the 
necessity of knowledge. 

Taking up, now, the question of the continuity of the law, 
it can be shown to rest on very sure foundations. 

First; on the character of God. If it were that part of the 
subject which concerns the details, there might be room for local 
or age-adapted changes, but it is the part concerning the passage 


Official Authority by Law that is Known 79 


of authority, in the first stages of that passage, that is before us. 
Not laws and conditions, to recur again to our illustration before 
used, of marriage, but laws of vitality, as it were. In fact, this 
grant of authority from God carries us to God’s consistency, and 
away from earth’s changeability. He adopts a method for 
Himself, 

Second; on the inclination to perpetuity of all things given 
in that age of perpetual gifts. Even though it might be wise 
that some things be left for local and time adaptation, there 
would be other things too fundamental not to belong to the class 
of things granted to be unchangeable. 

Third; change would involve notification of change—a new 
revelation. Either this, or, along with the law, an intimation of 
its variability. 

Fourth; on the absence in Scripture and History of confu¬ 
sion incident to change. 

After all, however, the simple position, that the law must be 
always known, carries with it the corollory that changes must 
be known also. Violations are, of course, different (they would 
be subject to detection according to the acumen of men), but 
God-made changes, if such there be, would start a new order of 
things, and it is of these we speak. 

These reflections bring into view a most important deduc¬ 
tion. Once grant that Authority comes by law, and that that law 
is known to the Church, and that there can be no authoritative 
changes that are not also known, and the mind is driven to esti¬ 
mate at a very high value all expressions by the Church of Her 
convictions concerning the law. Of course, if it is impossible to 
find the Church, there would be no help from that source, but if 
there be any age in which this institution of God—which, because 
of Her ministry of word and grace, is altogether dependent on 
God for Her Authority—can be found, and found bearing Her 
witnesses, then there can be no reason for any man to refuse to 
listen. Let him set all possible value on every other source of 
information, yet, if here be one who professes to know, and is 
compelled to know, that one we can hardly turn away. Of course 
there is much to be considered in the matter of the particular 
age or ages, and the particular expressions of Her knowledge, 


80 


Analytics of Church Government 


questions concerning Her agreement with the other sources of 
knowledge, and Her agreement with Her own self, but these would 
all be things among which men are wont to find their way. The 
important things is to note the glad tidings, that, out of the 
necessity for knowledge, one arises who is able to greatly help 
us in the solution of an intricate question. The importance of 
this help is best seen when the nature of the other great source 
of information to the present age on this question is considered, viz: 
the Hew Testament—a book so universally true as to need all the 
light that God has given in other ways for its true interpreta¬ 
tion, and which, very especially, from the very manner of its 
growth, demands the antecedent and parallel growth of the Church 
for its understanding. Growing side by side, and both of them 
the work of God, and the Book the ripest fruit of the Divine life 
working in the Church, it is but simple common sense to ques¬ 
tion both about this matter of common knowledge. 

While, however, the Church is obliged to know, the Scrip¬ 
tures are not required to make plain the law. It is most likely 
that they would do so, to some extent at least, but not requisite— 
as happens to be the case of the Church, concerning knowledge. 
The Apostles could know, and act under the law, and yet in all 
their writings never state it plainly enough for future generations 
to be sure of it. Certainly Christendom has disputed over such 
revelation of it as is given there until libraries have been created 
by equally cock-sure scholars on very different sides. Just as 
other great subjects are treated with brilliant flashes of heavenly 
light, yet never bathed in perpetual day, so it could well be with 
this. But the Church took Her way very calmly, and for cen¬ 
turies had less trouble on this line than on almost any other. 

If there were a question about a preference, as between these 
two, it might well disconcert the mind, should it regard the Scrip¬ 
tures as vague upon this subject, but there can be no such ques¬ 
tion at all. The knowledge of the Church and the true interpre¬ 
tation of the Scriptures must accord naturally. The value of 
the knowledge is that of a help towards the reading of the word 
of God. 

If the law were plainly in the Bible, there would be no dis¬ 
pute on such a scale as that which now besets the world. If it 
were there, but so as to require care in exegesis, this outside help 


Official Authority by Law that is Known 81 


from such a source could not but be welcome. If it were not 
there at all, then the Church in Her knowledge would become 
the sole dependence as an authority on the subject. 

Suppose, however, it should be insisted that it is plainly there, 
and yet totally different from the Church’s practice and expres¬ 
sion, then in addition to accounting for the great disputes since 
the Reformation, there would also be present for explanation the 
error of the Church in the face of the plain revelation of Scrip¬ 
ture, as well as a negation of the Church’s right to knowledge and 
necessity for knowledge. 

Under the force of all these considerations, it is very difficult 
to see why there should not be an eager turning to a full discus¬ 
sion of Church History, as well as Scripture, provided all due 
safeguards be thrown around the investigation. But also, it is so 
well known how a perfect cloud of dust rises in such a study, 
that, it must be born in mind, precautions of a very severe na¬ 
ture ought in all justice to be taken. Such severity can only help 
the final conclusion to be abiding. There can be no possible ob¬ 
jection made to a rigid strictness—as much so as the nature of 
the case allows. 


CHAPTER VI 


IDartous Considerations of llmportance 

I—Scripture and History 

If it be granted that we are to examine rigidly both Scrip¬ 
ture and Church History, it is important to know something of 
the fields in which the search is conducted, in their relation to 
the matter in hand. 

Let us first take Scripture: 

All study of the Scriptures is filled with difficulty because 
of these prime considerations, among others. 

First: The inter-relation of all the Scriptures. There can 
be no taking of any text by itself. Hot only may it happen, that 
in an altogether different book the key to the interpretation may 
occur (note how the Epistles of St. Paul depend on the Book of 
Acts, or the Gospels); or, some supplemental truth be set forth; 
but texts should not be taken from their context, or the context 
from its chapter, the chapter from the book, the book from the 
Testament, the Testament from its fellow. Incalculable harm has 
been done by violating this principle, as the whole range of re¬ 
ligious controversy testifies. 

Secondly: The inter-relation of the Bible to the other books 
of God, that of Nature and that of Man’s Nature—where a Reve¬ 
lation is given, in both cases, into the heart of which the Bible 
is intended to fit. There can be no hope of finality of religious 
thought until all the books of God are read, and read harmoni¬ 
ously. It may be that light would come from the first reading 
of the Word, but the light will .grow as knowledge of the other 
books increases, and the full truth only shine at the last. 

Thirdly: The disconnected form of the various books, ari* 
ing out of the difference of aims and purposes of each. 

Fourthly: The desultory nature of the narratives and his 
lories, due to the subordination of these to the higher spiritual 
purpose, and requiring the setting of secular historv for their 
plain reading. 


Various Considerations of Importance 83 

Fifthly: The difference in the matter of time when each 
book was written. For the successive books looked upon a rapidly 
developing growth of the Church, and took count of different 
stages in that growth. This has special bearing on a matter like 
the polity of an ever widening government. 

Sixthly: The apparently set purpose to eschew the giving of 
knowledge that could be supplied from other sources, and to con¬ 
fine itself to moral and spiritual revelation. After the period 
of ignorance and darkness in the middle ages, when the world 
came to open the Scriptures once more, so wonderful a vision of 
the things of God lay spread before men that it was perfectly 
natural to think every thing was there independently of all other 
sources, but the continued study for centuries has universally 
modified this view of the scope of the Bible. It is still supreme 
where it speaks, but, if men go to it to learn whether the Phil¬ 
ippian - jailer had any children at the time St. Paul baptized hi3 
household, there must be disappointment. Nor is it only along 
such lines as the precise nature of the Tree of Knowledge of 
Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden, that the Bible seems to 
refuse to answer, but even in such matters as the scope and limits 
of the work of the Deacons, or Deaconesses, and even of the Pres¬ 
byters, men are baulked of the settlement they crave. 

On the other hand, after all is said, the Bible is the plainest 
of the three books of God, and even if its interpretation be diffi¬ 
cult, yet it must ever be the supreme authority, and test of truth, 
even where there are other sources for gaining knowledge of 
things in common with it. 

Secondly; it is the only book, written in words, that is, 

■per se, the book of God. It is no less than the book of Nature, 
or the book of Human Nature, even though it expressly has the 
stamp of man’s hand also upon it. 

Thirdly: The Bible has some territory that is exclusive, and 
in that it remains the sole source of information. This is notably 
the case in the all important matter of the Apostles’ commission 
from Christ, as well as His own commission from God. 

Fourthly: The Bible is exceedingly clear on some points. So 
much so that it is said of it, that he that runs may read. For 
instance, this example may be taken as illustrating both the diffi¬ 
culty and the ease attending Bible interpretation. It is said in 


84 


Analytics of Church Government 


St. Matthew 18: 18, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be 
bound in Heaven.” How, however men may, and probably will, 
dispute, till the end of the world, as to the limits of power thus 
bestowed, there can be none to doubt that these words separated 
the Apostles, into a class, order, or, at the least, a company, gifted 
with unique authority. It may be necessary to range through 
many volumes in order to settle one’s own mind concerning the 
first point, but as to the other, the single passage suffices. 

Who, then, would be the wisest and safest interpreter of 
Scripture? He who, falling heir to the sifted conclusions of 
Metaphysics, Science, History and Language, could bring, to¬ 
gether with these, the spirit of consecration to God’s truth, de¬ 
terminedly separated from prejudices. This only in passing. And 
it may be said too, in just the same way, that no one man has 
ever appeared to fill the conditions, but, in each age, the Church 
has best attained to the first four conditions, and even to the 
last, although both the lack of consecration, and the existence of 
prejudice has been great. In saying—the Church, no thought of 
its inclusive or exclusive definition here enters, but the thought 
of its collective, attentive, authoritative and consecrated nature 
is in mind. 

If any one man should undertake to interpret the Scriptures, 
he would naturally suffice for himself, since his modicum of 
knowledge forms a mold quite sufficient to his mind for the Bib¬ 
lical texts to be tested for his own understanding; the Scripture 
just must seem to him to say thus and so, but the question is, 
can one man interpret for another? The right of private inter¬ 
pretation and the responsibility of teaching are altogether differ¬ 
ent. Ho fool even can be denied the first. But the interpreta¬ 
tion that counts , is the one that must be put before the world 
for its acceptance. Such an acceptance may depend primarily 
on the prestige of a name, but must, ultimately, depend on its 
setting in the midst of correlated truths. It is the easiest thing 
in the world to say—“We go by the Bible, but, if the Bible “goes” 
by other things, as well as itself, it is folly to ignore these other 
things. Consequently the art of Biblical interpretation is to be 
as deep as the Bible is deep. 

There are few regions in the realm of Biblical interprets- 


Various Considerations of Importance 85 

tion so hard to map as that of Church Government. We have a 
wealth of incident, and even of detail, but at every point knowl¬ 
edge is taken for granted—the knowledge very familiar to the 
people of those days, but to us, only to be obtained from many 
sources, even if these be open to us. Every incident seems to 
modify conclusions before reached. The very number of them 
renders it hard to weave them all in consistently. St. Stephen 
and St. Philip are chosen to serve tables, but the record of their 
work is preaching or baptizing. St. Paul is an Apostle not through 
men, and yet we find Simeon and others laying hands upon him. 
Titus’ authority in Crete looms up so nearly like an autocracy as 
to confound ideas formed concerning the democratic level sug¬ 
gested by the Council of Jerusalem, where even St. Paul seems 
to lose stature. A mighty question turns upon whether James of 
Jerusalem was James the son of Alphaeus (the Apostle) or not; 
and, if not, then surprise literally smites us to see him almost over- 
ranking St. Peter and St. John and the rest of the twelve. These 
plain parts of the narrative (plain in one way), and many other 
passages presuppose a knowledge we may like to invent, but which 
we do not possess from the record, and can only pretend to gain 
from that source by broad inferences, seldom acceded to by op¬ 
ponents. But the people of that day had facts into which the 
Scripture narratives fit without trouble, and which it is the part 
of learning and investigation to restore. 

Now, then, as far as the case of Biblical interpretation is 
concerned, we must conclude—First, that an empty uninformed 
mind can never find all he wants in Scripture; Second, that an 
ill informed mind will be apt to arrange the statements, and still 
more the doctrines of Scripture, on the thread of his previous 
knowledge, falsely so-called; Third, that Scripture demands and 
fits into correct knowledge, and that only. But, furthermore, it 
is to be recognized that the harmony of God is in the Scriptures, 
and all else is to be attuned to that note*, naturally and ex¬ 
quisitely; and the test will be when, without any changing of 
that, the whole instrument is harmonized. 

In the next place, the nature of the field of History is to be 
examined, and, as in the case of the Scriptures, the difficulties 
will be first considered. 


86 Analytics of Church Government 

First: While the Scriptures are known definitely, and all 
their words are bound up together in one book, the field of His¬ 
tory is immense, vague and complex. 

Secondly: The fountainheads are often beyond the reach of 
investigation, however trustworthy the surface may appear. 

Thirdly: Tradition has large room in History, and while 
tradition may be true enough, its title is at best cloudy. 

Fourthly: Developments, accretions and corruptions are eas¬ 
ily put forward as origins or fundamentals. 

Fifthly: Forgeries are encountered, and interpolations 
abound. 

Sixthly: The bias of authors is constantly to be reckoned 

with. 

Seventhly: Original documents are rare, and the texts which 
we have, scantily vouched for. 

Eighthly: The information is, even after all the sifting, 
fragmentary, and often doubtfully relevant. Furthermore, it is 
quite frequently contradictory within itself. 

Ninthly: After human effort has exhausted itself in getting 
at the results of historical study, they may be found to be of 
little account because of the material upon which they depend. 

On the other hand, it is to be said. 

First: That History alone can give us the other facts we 
need for the setting of the facts of Scripture—those other facts 
to which Scripture really appeals. 

Secondly: That facts are facts, however ascertained, and 
must be treated as such if once they are so established. 

Thirdly: That there are some things which it is perfectly 
possible to establish as facts, in spite of all the above difficulties. 
Monuments exist, documents have been preserved in perfectly 
credible form, evidence of events is plentiful, laws have descended 
unchanged, traditions were crystalized at once, or, owing to a 
force of cumulative testimony, come to us too well authenticated 
to be set aside. 

Fourthly: That the appeal to History is universal, necessary 
and unavoidable, wherever its field marches with that of any other 
division of man’s knowledge, and its position is of pre-eminent 
importance, by reason of its own peculiar forces. 


Various Considerations of Importance 


87 


Fifthly: That God is in the History of events, deeds, laws, 
and institutions, as well as in those things themselves, and there 
is a harmony and philosophy of History second only in vividness 
to that of the Scriptures, which themselves, in fact, form a part 
of the larger, if vaguer, whole we know as History. 

Sixthly: That Church History is only a part of the larger 
whole of History, and is in very little degree marked by more diffi¬ 
culties of interpretation; while there are even some things to 
make it less so. If, on the one hand, forgeries, and bias, and 
tradition have their greater play there, on the other, documents 
are more numerous, and dependence on historians whose sources 
of information are unavailable for us, is markedly less. In fact, 
the theological treatises coming down in good state of preserva¬ 
tion are a boon to workers in the religious field greatly envied 
by those starving for documents of such value in other parts of 
the work. 

Two things may now be said. One is—that if any one 
should try to exalt History as an authority equal to Scripture, 
he must fail. The other is—that if any one should seek to cast 
away History because Scripture transcends it in value, he can be 
no guide for men in the solving of many perplexing matters. 

That the Church is specially of God, as well as is Scripture, 
goes without saying, but, in the case of the Church, the battle 
within and without is still going on, and Her acts are the acts of 
one unsettled and fighting Her way. When, then, we come to 
Church History, we not only have the difficulties of interpreta¬ 
tion, but the questions arising out of the unsettled conditions of 
the Church Herself. The Church's motion is in great contrast 
to the Bible’s fixedness. How impossible, therefore, to get out of 
History values equal to those derived from the Bible. 

But, on the other hand, to have a source of testimony, and 
ignore it, is to remain ignorant. One goes to History, not to 
confront the Bible, but to confront certain interpretations of the 
Bible. For such a purpose, History can not but be useful. The 
Bible gives the origin of a stream; History gives its further 
course. If that be the simple fact, it would be stupid not to 
study both, and, in case there were doubts raised in the study 
of one, might they not be solved in the study of the other, not 


88 


Analytics of Church Government 


by confusion or substitution of facts, but by the light of facts? 

It is the facts that History presents that give it power in 
all discussions of Biblical interpretation, but especially so in mat¬ 
ters of order, government, institution, custom and the like. Facts 
are facts wherever found. They must be accounted for, they bear 
testimony, they refuse to move. Where, as in the case before us— 
the law governing the appointment of ministers, or, to put it 
differently, the acquisition by men of ministerial authority—there 
is no formally written law, but it is knowable by us of these days, 
only as it can be deduced from ascertained facts, they become all 
important, if indeed they be facts. 

It ought to be insisted, then, that, when any one goes to 
History for help, he should go for facts. Many opinions are 
found given in History, and opinions have a certain weight, but 
they are not facts. Church History is written largely with the 
theological treatises of the Fathers as the basis, and these treaties 
abound with opinions of more or less value, but still only opin¬ 
ions. The utmost care should be used to thread ones way through 
these opinions, etc., to the facts themselves. 

If one’s study of History could be successfully directed to 
this one purpose, and a large number of actual facts in the early 
life of the Church be gathered and placed beyond cavil or dispute, 
it is difficult to see how minds of the intelligent could resist the 
due consideration of them as elements helping to the solution of 
the problem. It would only be possible to avoid such a course by 
the theory of corrupt change, or a refusal to take note of any¬ 
thing springing from such a source as the early Church. If 
is well known that the respect of some for the early Church is 
about at Zero point, and that any source seems preferred to 
such a course, but such a condition of mind is not that of the scholar 
in any wise, but that of crass bigotry. The wholesale quotation 
of anything and everything, really, or alleged to be, in the, Fath¬ 
ers, and other early writers, has much to do with this condition 
of mind, and just because of it, it is now necessary that strict¬ 
ness be increased, and care taken to get at the facts, with full 
faith that, if this be done, the facts will be accorded the just 
weight of facts. 

The bearing of Scripture and History upon matters touched 




Various Considerations of Importance 89 

upon in both, and which need both in order that clear vision may 
be had, is indeed more happily and admirably illustrated in the 
case of Church polity than any other possible to mention. The 
terms Apostolos, Episcopos, Presbuteros , Diaconos , are all pecu¬ 
liar terms, used for the first time in the world as including all 
the older terms of ministration in religious matters. The neces¬ 
sity of definition which shall be both inclusive and exclusive is 
perfectly patent. Now, if we add the other terms. Evangelists, 
Teachers, Prophets, Interpreters, Helps, Governments, Deacon¬ 
esses, etc., there comes before us a very large number of terms 
to be filled out into life, or consolidated, or cast away as redun¬ 
dant or temporal. It is well known how, to the end of Scrip¬ 
ture, the word Apostolos is used with possible general sense only, 
as well as with the more technical meaning (the case of Epaphro- 
ditus, notably), and the word Diaconos is to larger degree still 
used generally, Episcopos and Presbuteros are interchangeable 
and within the term Presbuteros itself we have the questions 
raised by such texts as that in the Epistle to Timothy, which speaks 
of “ The elders who rule well,” and those “ who labor in the word 
and doctrine.’’ In fact it may be said that Scripture shows us 
that new molds were made, and all the old historical, well de¬ 
fined divisions of ministerial office broken up, and the powers of 
all the functions of religious office poured into the new molds, 
whose names even confuse all effort at definition of authority as 
thus distributed. Furthermore, that Scripture, so far from pre¬ 
scribing the limits and distinctions of the new molds, assumes 
that these are well known, and so treats them, leaving us allu¬ 
sions, and provoking from us inferences, (which we have been 
little loath to make) over a range as wide as East and West. 

And yet there was a fact, or rather an actual condition, cre¬ 
ated at that time, with which all Scripture is consonant, and 
which passed into History—a solid rock of organization, stand¬ 
ing to the then world as the visible side of the new life and 
power that had arisen, and begun its strenuous warfare. But, 
if this actual condition be there, then it is specifically the func¬ 
tion of History to tell us about it, as it appeared in solidarity as 
fashioned in Biblical times, or in its various stages of growth, 
if growth were left for its historical period. And, moreover, 


90 


Analytics of Church Government 


from the natures of both History and this “Rock of Organiza¬ 
tion,” we would expect peculiarly abundant light, and testimony 
of exceptional value. One has only to consider, in order to see 
how much easier it would be for History to leave hint, and plainer 
word, and even clear definition about this representative, conspic¬ 
uous backbone of the worlds greatest movement, than about mat¬ 
ters of doctrine, or a hundred other things; and, on the other 
hand, how much harder to misrepresent the part set on a hill 
than those less noticeable. 

It is always hard to refuse a witness a hearing. Even if 
there be one supreme witness that both sides rely on, yet if a 
witness have testimony to offer, and proposes to go on the stand, 
it would take extremely excellent reasons to make him stand 
aside. No one has ever yet thrust History to one side with 
impunity. The only way to treat History is to satisfy the 
mind that it is indeed History. If ever it should be the case 
that History should become the foe of the Bible, then indeed 
there would be an enemy to dread. The historical proof of 
the Scriptures is a sheet anchor for Scripture. Each book holds 
its place as its present value dependent on History. There is 
no fear of History, therefore, not being listened to. The ques¬ 
tion will come up as to its proper place, but place it has, by its 
own right. Let us then ask, whether it would be better to 
hear History, and then turn to the Bible; or, to hear the Bible, 
and then turn to History? It is easy to answer. The Bible 
gives plain facts, and as such is History; and besides these facts, 
there are other parts either treating, or treating of, these facts. 
The plain facts of the Bible we can deal with as perfectly vouched 
for. Then, from History proper other facts are to be sought, 
arid arranged according to their reliability and their weight. The 
mind should know all the facts first, however derived, before it 
attempts the interpretation of the other parts of Scripture. If 
need not be that he must exalt any facts to a place with those 
read in the Bible (for, will he have anything like as good author¬ 
ity for them?); or, be ready to warp simple interpretation out 
of its way so as to include them; but the broad principle is 
there, that all facts ought to be in hand before interpretation be¬ 
gins. The informed mind is better than the empty. Facts 


Various Considerations of Importance 91 

are always to be reckoned with before conclusions. To go to 
History first, interpret it, and then come to Scripture, would 
be apt to prejudice the interpretation of Scripture—tune it to 
another note. On the other hand, to interpret all we have in 
Scripture, and then go to History would be to interpret Scrip¬ 
ture with ignorant minds, and make useless the going to His¬ 
tory. But to make long the line of facts, by adding to those 
so surely given in the Scripture, those gathered in History (some 
on indisputable evidence, and some less certainlv established, as 
the case may be), and then approach the task of making the al¬ 
lusions of Scripture as plain to us as they were to the Corinthi¬ 
ans or Philippians of those early days, or placing our inference 
upon a broader basis—this could not possibly lead us as far 
astray as either of the other courses. To say Tradition or His¬ 
tory says thus and so, and, therefore, Scripture must say so too, 
is to open floodgates. To say Scripture says thus and so, and 
it does not matter what Tradition or History says, is to arm an 
opponent, who in the company of scholars can laugh at us. But, 
to value facts, wherever found, and to attempt the harmony of 
all Scripture and all the facts at hand, would be pre-eminently 
rational. 

The proper treatment of the Fathers is one of the most diffi¬ 
cult of problems. That they are in some respects most valua¬ 
ble, and in other respects most misleading, has become plain to 
all who have followed in the wake of controversies, where they 
are appealed to in full measure. But, after all is said against 
them, there remains just this plain, undeniable position, capable 
of being held against all assaults—that as witnesses they can 
not be ruled out; but, on the other hand, on being admitted, 
must be subjected to all the tests that witnesses usually receive. 
On matters within range of their knowledge; and out of range 
of their interests; where their testimony is given clearly and to 
the point; without pressure; and the character of the witness 
commands confidence—who could forbear to weigh the testimony. 
Let us take an example, which is selected because it is in fact 
really conclusive of nothing in question, but comes very near to 
having determinate influence in another controversy. Justin 
Martyr (110-165) in his “Apology,” addressed to Emperor, Sen- 


92 


Analytics of Church Government 


ate and Roman People, arguing for Christianity, and not think¬ 
ing of any issue about Baptism, mentions that “Many, both men 
and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, re¬ 
main pure, at the age of sixty or seventy years.” (1 Apology 
Chap. XV). Now, if we look over this testimony, we will 
see clearly that it is absolutely worthy of confidence. Only 
direct contradiction by preponderant testimony could possibly up¬ 
set it. Justin Martyr is fully worthy of confidence; he speaks 
most clearly; it is a matter within his knowledge; he is entirely 
disinterested and under no compulsion whatever. On the strength 
of this statement, we fully accept the conclusion that children 
were admitted to discipleship. What now if Justin had said 
‘infancy’ instead of the more ambiguous ‘childhood/ could we 
rule out Justin as a witness? Even if we became more critical, 
could we reject the witness? 

And so it must be all the way through. When we find a 
record—a document, whether letter, treatise, history, collection 
of laws, and decrees, liturgy, or anything else, it becomes a source 
of information, and however sifted and weighed beforehand, takes 
a place of right on the witness stand. 

Furthermore, just as*in law, experts can testify from opin¬ 
ion so even the opinions of men who rise to the dignity of Author¬ 
ities, on account of position, learning, travel, special means of 
knowledge, etc., ought, of right, to be heard, but the degree of 
caution concerning all this class of testimony should be exces¬ 
sive, after all the experience the world has had of expert opinion 
on dark subjects. It is needless almost to say, that though use¬ 
ful for clinching convictions otherwise formed, they can not be 
used for foundations. Their great value is that they give us 
the atmosphere of those early days. 

Ill— Essentials and Non-Essentials 

In every department of Religion, there is an essential to be 
looked for. Everything that lies in the region of Faith is not 
to be required. Everything in the region of action is not to be 
insisted on. All conclusions are not worked out in Scripture, 
nor customs settled; and organization there is conspicuously un- 




Various Considerations of Importance 93 

crystalized. Any discussion, that ignores the distinction between 
essentials and non-essentials, will surely be untrustworthy. It 
can hardly be possible that we must be tied to any system in its 
entirety, never minding changes of races, times and conditions. 
Some leeway is certainly expected, and allowed for. A change 
in a minor function of a minor office can not be of the same 
gravity as a change at the fountain head of administration. 
The least breaking of the moral law is a breaking of the whole, 
but administration has, as its field, different conditions, and, as 
its wisdom, adaptation to those conditions. Some principles 
must guide, but some details must be adventitious. 

In each department we find essentials. There is the Creed, 
which embodies the essentials of the faith that is Christian. It 
is reasonable to demand conformity with its statements, but to 
incorporate all doctrine in a creed would be to exact too much 
in the way of conformity. There too, in the field of worship, 
is the Lord’s Supper, which is a necessity to all worship that 
would differentiate itself from all other modes that the world 
has seen set forth—the very heart and essence of Christian wor¬ 
ship. Again, with floods of light from God, pouring into men’s 
minds from all sides, fraught with revelation, there are the 
Scriptures, constituting essentially that Revelation which can not 
be dispensed with, or disregarded. Even in the realm of morals, 
though, because perfection is demanded, everything is of great 
importance, yet there is that plain setting forth of the Ten Com¬ 
mandments as the central and essential law of righteousness, 
just as, in the higher spiritual region, the Sermon on the Mount 
enunciates the principles which ramify in all directions. There¬ 
fore, we might expect to find, in the department of Government, 
something at the center so governing and controlling authority 
and office as to constitute a life principle or essential; for an 
essential does not mean merely a more important part, but a 
source, or a stem, or a seed from which the rest can always 
spring. 

Now, then, just that we might range over the ground with 
a view to the possibilities, and by no means in order, as yet, to 
express preference, or begin the construction of the position here¬ 
after to be taken, let us look at some of the theories that might 


94 


Analytics of Church Government 


arise concerning the essentials of Church Government. It could 
be said, we can easily suppose, that the Scriptures give a com¬ 
plete system, with every office and every power of each office 
named and set forth, and all things necessary to the setting up, 
and induction into those offices declared; and that, this being the 
case, the system in its entirety, just as given, is the essential. 

On the other hand, that the minor offices are not at all of 
the essence, but that one chief office, from which minor offices 
can be at any time derived, according to need and circumstances, 
is all that is essential; and that the Scriptures are purposely clear 
on the subject of the fact and powers of that chief office, and 
vague concerning the minor offices, from this very cause. 

Between these two extremes a number of positions are pos¬ 
sible, even if not all actual. 

On another line again, it could be said, that the essential 
is—the gift of Power to the Church; and that it is given to 
Her to be exercised by (a) the totality; or, (b) the official part 
of Her. 

And, supposing either one of these be true, there are still 
the two positions possible, that, in this exercise of power, there 
be (a) freedom in the arrangement and settlement of all things 
according to needs and circumstances, as they arise, and (b) 
restrictions, that come with the gift of power, and form a part 
of the Essential—in other words, necessary conditions. 

Thus, the Essential may concern office, or power; methods, 
and forms; and even lie so far back as to involve the seat of 
power (i. e., apart from and behind the offices). 

It is easily seen, therefore, that it can hardly be possible that 
everything related to any specified practical system must be re¬ 
garded as essential. It is necessary to choose what ought to be 
so regarded, and what can be looked upon as changeable. Above 
all, to try to determine what is so essential as to involve life it¬ 
self—“being” as well as “well being.’’ There might well be a 
hesitancy in every mind to depart at all from what it regards as 
found in Scripture, but, apart from the question as to whether 
Scripture means that all shall be taken as unchangeable, we are 
often confronted with what we believe to be distinct departures 
from Scripture, exhibited as accomplished realities, and it then 


Various Considerations of Importance 


95 


concerns ns very nearly to know, not the wrong, but the full 
wrong of it—the effect on the very life. Has there been in such 
and such a case a sacrifice of essentials? 

Is there, in fact, however, it may be asked, any essential in 
the strictest sense? In much that has been said, it mignt be 
thought that there is rather an effort to discriminate between 
the very important and the less important, but does any absolute 
essential exist—any seed, source , or stem, as was said above, out 
of which the rest could rise again as it has arisen before, just 
in the way that Doctrine could spring from the Creed, Worship 
from the Lord's Supper, or Spiritual Teaching from the Ser¬ 
mon on the Mount? As, then, we glanced over the possibilities 
above, did there loom out an idea that some seed principle did 
in fact exist, which could constitute an essential in the strictest 
sense? Was there, for instance, in the suggestion of a gift of 
Power to the Church, constituting it either in its totality, or 
through a part, a source of all office and method, a road opened, 
down which we could see an important part grown or erected 
into an essential in the strictest sense? Whether that particu¬ 
lar instance be the correct, or the wrong selection for the actual 
essential, it is easy to see that, if such a gift be decided on as 
the actual one, it would fill the condition of the seed or source. 
The actual essential may, indeed, be much larger in its content, 
and reach even as far as the first of the instances taken as possi¬ 
bilities, viz.: that all the system set forth in Scripture constitutes 
the unchangeable source of whatever else may be added (as, for 
instance, the counciliar, synodical or association system; or the 
various methods of localizing and dividing up religious work). 
The point to be noted is, that it is inherent in the nature of 
Church Government that there can exist an essential of the 
strictest kind, and that it is not idle to ask that, in the arguing 
for various positions in the matter of Ecclesiastical Polity, each 
contending side should try to reduce its ideas concerning essen¬ 
tials and non-essentials to clear statement, so that, not only some¬ 
things might be spared attack and counter attack, but the whole 
conflict might be more about principles than forms. For while 
it is hardly to be doubted that Scripture settles principles, and 
does not leave them for History to reveal, it is much more to 


96 


Analytics of Church Government 


be questioned whether Scripture does not deliberately leave forms 
to be judged of on the spot, as they actually become manifest in 
life and motion. 

If, now, we should be convinced, that essentials of the nature 
of seed can be, and ought to be sought, then it ought also to be 
borne in mind that the essential must be capable of providing 
for the continuation, as well as first existance, of the machinery 
of government, and forever guarding all the functions properly 
inherent in it. This indeed goes without saying, but it is im¬ 
portant that it be kept in sight, and not forgotten or ignored. 

If, in order to get out of the range of our possible preju¬ 
dices, we should take another system, and make an application 
to it of the principles suggested by this discussion of essentials 
and non-essentials, a clear idea of the points involved might be 
had. Therefore, let an analysis of the Jewish system be made. 

That system is clearly outlined in Scripture, even to the 
small details, and it is the most familiar of all to every reader. 
We find there that Aaron was made High-Priest, and that the 
whole priesthood consisted of his descendants, and since Aaron 
himself was a Levite, and all his descendents, therefore, Levites, 
the whole body of those ministrants could have been replaced at 
any time from the descendants of Aaron. The perpetuation of 
the whole system depended on the God-guarded principle of 
natural birth. There could be, and often was, more than one 
High-Priest (who were called chief priests generally), so far as 
capacity to minister in the Temple in the functions of that office, 
even though only one was regarded as the real Head of the 
Hierarchy. It is easy, therefore, to mark out the essentials of 
the Jewish ecclesiastical system. An original gift of authority 
to the highest officer, which gift could flow from him to all the 
rest, in whole to some, in part to others, and sustain the whole 
weight and efficiency of the system in perfect lines throughout 
the ages. Given at any time, but one male descendant of Aaron, 
and the whole system could be started anew. As ,was said above, 
the power flowed according to the line of natural descent. This 
law of birth, then, and the one original office constitute a suffi¬ 
cient seed or source to be regarded as the essentials; Nor can 
we find any thing else to be added, unless we say that formal 


Various Considerations of Importance 


97 


consecration was necessary to bring the latent powers, derived in 
birth, into the effectual stage for use. Since, too, the higher 
office included the lower ones, those offices were even always in 
existence, as long as one of the house of Aaron remained. 

The selection of essentials, in the case of the system which 
succeeded—the Christian, may not be as simple as this, but it 
may be equally possible to arrive at a separation of the seed 
principle, upon which God has founded the life of His Church, 
by sufficient care in the discussion. 

Ill— Vision, Evidence, and Proof 

A few remarks ought to be made upon the above heads, be¬ 
cause of the great misapprehensions that are manifest in all the 
discussions of the subject of Church Government. 

In all the realms of Eeligion we find an appeal made to 
Faith. There always seems to be a gap between the point up 
to which proof reaches and the position we are called upon to 
occupy. The conclusions of Faith are not left without the 
support of evidence, but knowledge is not substituted for Faith. 
Evidence can give us the range; but Faith must carry us to the 
mark. Nor is the conclusion to be a mere balance of probabili¬ 
ties. There is such a thing as Vision , and it springs out of 
evidence, but reaches beyond it. In other words, conclusions in 
the religious field can seldom be necessary conclusions, and cer¬ 
tainly not dependant on the fluctuation of probabilities. What¬ 
ever evidence is to be had must be embraced and included, and 
the conclusion must flow from the evidence, but not as the only 
conclusion. In other spheres it is the same. If the Poet, 
Prophet or Philosopher were tied like the Mathematician, it 
would be a lesser world than this we know. Mounted on the 
evidence, the eye sweeps byond. There is a judgment of the 
mind and a judgment of the entire man—one into which the 
whole nature enters and approves. St. Paul speaks of the judg¬ 
ment Kata Epignosei, and the judgment Kata aisthisei, which is 
translated—“according to knowledge and all judgment.” The 
mind must never be repelled, but often it can not lead all the 
way. The moral and aesthetic parts of our nature have their 


98 


Analytics of Church Government’ 


judgments, as well as the mental. Again, there is always a re¬ 
gion above us into which we would reach, and our beliefs and 
convictions must harmonize there, as well as with the things upon 
which we stand. The Statesman must make his course agree 
with the future as well as with the past. The Prophet and Poet, 
too, must be logical to the greater glory of truth as yet impossi¬ 
ble of proof. Let minds be logical to syllogisms, but let Vision 
and Faith be logical to God. 

The interpretation of the Scriptures is not a mere matter 
of the logic of the mind, an effort to be syllogistic. Suffice it 
(we are tempted to say) if we do not run contrary to syllogisms. 
We must somehow “apprehend that, for which we are appre¬ 
hended/’ We must believe that which is offered to Faith, not 
Knowledge. 

It is hardly to be expected that any system of Church Gov¬ 
ernment can be completely proved out of the Scriptures, but one 
is there in germ, or in developed form, and the evidences of 
Scripture are not against it, even if they do not distinctly re¬ 
veal it. In all search we must look at all the evidence, and 
bring Vision to bear—mounted upon the evidence, but logical 
to the upper realm, as well as to that on which it stands. 

It is customary to say of another’s conclusions—“That does 
not necessarily follow,” and to be satisfied, in our own case, if 
it follows at all. It is well to remember that, in the field we 
are working, we can not talk too much about the “necessary” 
conclusion. If we can get one supported by all the evidence, 
and logical to Faith and Grace, to Government with its dual 
principle of Authority and Consent, to Ministerial office and 
function, to the Church’s clearly expressed knowledge and cus¬ 
tom, it may be that Vision, or the judgment of the entire man 
will decide for it as proper for our faith and conviction. 

Proof is a boon not to be looked for, unless the wranglings 
or four hundred years have been baseless, but evidence must be 
examined as strictly as if it led to proof. Faith can never dis¬ 
pense with it. Vision is but Fancy, if it fly in the face of it. 
As far as it goes it controls the logic of the mind, and it is only 
where it stops that flight can be taken with other wings. 


CHAPTER VII 


Historical trapes of (government 

The task we now have before us is as follows: 

Not hoping for anything so decisive as proof, we are, never¬ 
theless, to look at the evidence which lies at hand, from what¬ 
ever source it comes, weigh it for what it is worth, and use it as 
a starting point, from which we can gain a Vision of that or 
those Essential principle or principles which formed the Seed, or 
Stem, or Spring which was to grow into the system of Church 
Government designed of God to embody Authority and Consent, 
with such arrangement of Ministerial Office and Function that 
Church Government should be a pathway for Himself to accom¬ 
plish, by Grace, and through Faith, the righetousness of men. 

But, manifestly, we can not start to examine a system as it 
arose and grew, without having in our minds the proper back¬ 
ground and surroundings. This new polity was not the first, 
and the past systems prepared conditions for it, and, to some 
extent certainly, were gathered up and perfected in it. More¬ 
over, it was to go forth quickly into all the surrounding world, 
and there stand in the midst of highly organized polities, both 
civil and religious. Therefore, before we begin to read our 
evidence, we must read our conditions, studying especially the 
background. When it is said in the Scriptures, that Christ was 
a High-Priest, after the order of Melchizedech, and we are now 
able, through better knowledge of the times and customs of the 
age of Melchizedech, to understand such a statement, it is plain 
that to ignore that ancient past would be wrong. And there are 
numerous other points that need the past for the elucidation. 

The fact of the matter is, that for all their great divergen¬ 
cies, there is a great unity underlying the manners, customs, 
religions and polities of the whole ancient civilized world. Each 
succeeding people that rose to greatness, but carried to greater 
development ideas and principles that began long before their 
day, and owed to some former people the height of the previous 
tide. The special genius of a new people was needed, not to 


100 


Analytics of Church Government 


begin a new system, but to perfect the one that had already run 
through several stages. For instance, could a man have lived, 
continuously, in Syria, from the time of King Sargon of Accad, 
who flourished almost four thousand years before our era, on 
through the years when, in succession, Chedorlaomer the Ela¬ 
mite, Khammurabi of the Arabian dynasty of Babylon, Shalmaneser 
the Assyrian, Nebuchadnezzer the Chaldean, Xerxes the Per¬ 
sian, Alexander the Greek, Mithridates the Parthian, and Octa¬ 
vius the Roman came to their power, he would have seen a con¬ 
tinuous development and consolidation of organized polity in 
that region, in civil affairs, that would have shown all the signs 
of an evolution. Through the Phoenicians, and other traders, 
and the conquest of kings, the world that was then called, and 
believed to be, the World, was bound together in a way, the de¬ 
gree of which we are just coming to realize. Not only alphabets 
and literary forms, arts, styles, utensils, garments, weapons, coins, 
seals, legal customs, contracts and many other things; but gods, 
and rights, ceremonies, systems, doctrines, and all things pertain¬ 
ing to religion were grouped in unity, as well as difference, 
throughout all the region Eastward, from Spain to the mountains 
beyond Persia. Modifications were great, but something in com¬ 
mon to be modified was unquestionably there. When we come 
to account for all this, we find the following facts. 

Previous to the opening of History, the inferior races had 
been driven beyond the bounds of the regions that were to con¬ 
stitute the scene of the growth of civilization, and were only left 
in traces here and there. They had carried civilization, as far 
£s they could, but the more intellectual division of the human 
family alone could carry it on. This division was itself widely 
scattered, and that which was developed at the centre would only 
reach the remote subdivisions after a long period. But these very 
remote peoples were essentially of the stock that was capable of 
the progress yet to come. The limit set to the lower races, in 
the line of original development, was no limit for them. When 
their time should come, and the seed be planted, they could grow 
the crop, and bear the fruit for which they were destined. It 
is to be noted that the races previously on the ground were to 


Historical Types of Government 


101 


furnish in large measure the thing to be developed, and the 
higher races, entering into a ready made civilization of some, even 
if small, degree, were to supply the genius (though also adding 
their own ideas) for further growth, for which the lower were un¬ 
fitted. 

Previous also to Historic times, we have the initial move¬ 
ments by which the favored ones gained possession of the inheri¬ 
tance they were to increase. The Valley of the Nile, and the 
Valley of the Euphrates and Tigris, were to be twin and rival 
centres of growth, and on the old inhabitants of these two regions 
came the invading tide of the people who would take up the task 
of greater things. They came from Arabia. Those who in¬ 
vaded Egypt, from the Red Sea coast; and those invading the 
Euphrates valley, from the eastern regions; and both had earlier 
issued out of interior valleys of that country which has given 
birth to so many migrations—Arabia Felix. That the ancient 
Egyptians of History were of Arabia origin, who crossed at the 
straits and moved down the Nile valley, seems pretty clear, and 
that wave after wave of Arabian peoples invaded the Euphrates 
valley is undoubted. Now these Semitic peoples were nomadic 
at first, and afterwards became settled in part, and in part con¬ 
tinued nomadic. This feature, their nomadic life, points out 
that their first offerings in religious worship would be the fruits 
of their flocks, not fields. In other words, the wide spread cus¬ 
tom of sacrifical blood-shedding is to be traced, naturally and 
simply, to the Semitic Arabians, who, breaking into the worlds 
centres of civilization, took up the task, for the world, of carry¬ 
ing civilization to the point where European races could find it 
ready for their genius to push further. The fact that Pheoni- 
cians, Aramaeans, Assyrians, large parts of the Babylonian popu¬ 
lation, and almost the entire group of tribes along the western 
bank of the Euphrates, besides many other peoples, were Arabian 
in origin, reveals the secret of the tremendous scope of sacrifice 
in religious worship in the ancient world. But if the nomad, with 
his gift from his flocks, brought on the world’s stage the sacri¬ 
ficial element of worship, so also must be due to him the corol¬ 
lary of that position, that the sacrificer also is of his institution. 
In the Bible account of Cain and Abel, it is the flock-minding 


102 


Analytics of Church Government 


Abel wlio pleases God by the offering of a victim; and the no¬ 
madic Arab played the same role on the large stage of the world’s 
religions development. Priesthood would have existed just as 
truly without this element of blood-shedding (We have already 
seen in Chap. IV that Hiereus means only “one in sacred office”), 
even if not as fully, but whatever it was before, the bringer of a 
lamb to be offered and eaten by the offerer, gave a coloring to all 
the future character of the ministrant of worship. 

Many other things were due to these Arabic Nomads, both 
in the general field, and in the more special one of religion. In 
Babylonia they possibly found fetichism, etc., already passed into 
Prophecy and Ministration, with priestly Rule strongly devel¬ 
oped, (though the first migrations may have been during the in¬ 
fancy of this development), but their contribution to the system, 
afterwards so fully developed, must have been the offering of ani¬ 
mal life. 

The Hebrew was thoroughly of the Arabian stock, but from 
a branch that had lived on the western bank of the Euphrates, 
and very near the mouth of that river. By the time of Abram’s 
migration, the principle of Priestly rule was highly developed, 
whole colleges of Prophets existed, and Ministration was become 
very elaborate. He passed into a land where the Babylonian 
system was in full vogue, and Melchizedech was the Priest-King, 
or Patesi of Salem; or, as it is called in the Tel-el-Amarna tab¬ 
lets soon after, Urusalem. Then his descendants went into 
Egypt, where priest-craft, elaborate ritual, animal sacrifices, as 
well as offerings of incense, spices and fruits marked the wor¬ 
ship. After long sojourn there, they passed into the desert, 
and the leader and law-giver, the establisher of all their future 
system, was the one who had been for forty years in the schools 
of the Egyptians, and becoming the son-in-law of the High-Priest 
of that Arabian people who lived in the northern trade-cities and 
settlements of a great South-Arabian nation, had become im¬ 
bued with the system of Midian. Like all the others, this Ara¬ 
bic people had the threefold idea of Prophet, Priest and Ruler, 
but the latter was evidently not carried to the Egyptian or Baby¬ 
lonian extreme. There the Hebrew came also upon an altar of 
incense. 


Historical Types of Government 


103 


Now, Moses had this problem before him. Aaron was to 
be priest, and there was to be no King in real sense. The Priest- 
King idea of Melchizedech, and the system of Egypt and Baby¬ 
lonia, where the civil Ruler was supreme over religion (though 
the Patesi was an early Babylonian development), were not to 
be his choice for Israel, so that he could not magnify and extend 
the ruling power of the priesthood of Aaron, and he did not 
design for either himself, or his successor Joshua, great domina¬ 
tion over it. He gave the priesthood, nevertheless, a great deal 
of power, and opened to them regions of the people’s life that 
might have been used for great usurpations. Then, by the ad¬ 
vice of Jethro, who was accustomed to Arabian ideas of tribal 
gatherings, he created the Council of Elders, with jurisdiction 
that, like his own, involved matters both civil and religious. Fi¬ 
nally, he utilized the whole congregation as an assembly for rati¬ 
fication of matters of great moment. 

Thus, at the beginning of Israel’s life, there is to be seen an 
ordered priesthood ( High-Priests, Priests and Levites) in charge 
of elaborate ceremonials of worship, embracing all the varieties 
of offerings that marked the most advanced systems of the world 
(even the human sacrifice being recognized by substitutes), which 
systems had grown and developed under Semitic influences in 
Egypt, Midian and Babylonia. This priesthood also had exten¬ 
sive powers of rule, but not those directly civil. Prophetical 
powers were not included, but these, exercised by Moses and 
Miriam, stood apart as personal gifts. Markedly Semitic and 
Arabian, indeed nomadic, are the two features, the Council and 
the Assembly. 

When the children of Israel entered the Promised Land there 
was a very large Semitic element there. Hittites and Amorites 
could not have been, but the Caananites, Phoenicians, Moabites, 
Edomites and Ammonites were all of Arabian origin. These 
seemed to have furnished no temptation to the Israelites to break 
away from the Mosaic scheme of polity, however they did actually 
allure them, with great persuasiveness, to add gods to their the¬ 
ology, and all the practices of human sacrifices, unseemly rites, 
witchcraft, spiritualism, ancestor worship, fetichism and prophecy 
by signs and omens, etc., to their religious worship. Possibly 


104 


Analytics of Church Government 


their strong Semiticism had saved them, in Babylonia and Egypt, 
from the elements there due to Turanian or Cushite influences, 
and here in Palestine the same prejudice by nature was continu¬ 
ously on their side, but, certain it is that, the form of their eccle- 
siasticism found greater enemies in outward difficulties, than in 
any attempts by the old people of the land. Thus, in the time 
of the Judges, conditions were not favourable to centralization of 
anything, and the Council, the Assembly, Prophecy, the Minis¬ 
tration of the Priesthood, Ecclesiastical and Civil Rule, all ap¬ 
pear to have suffered accordingly, but to have revived under the 
coming of opportunity as naturally as indigenous institutions al¬ 
ways do, just because indigenous. The perfect naturalness of 
Moses’ system is made evident—naturalness to these Semitic peo¬ 
ple. 

As time went on, and historical changes came, we find the 
modifications of conditions, as David and Solomon reigned, or 
Ahab and Athalia. Now the Prophet found his opportunity, 
now the Priesthood. At one time the Priesthood, of very neces¬ 
sity, grasp all powers of Rule, but, again, we see the Council vin¬ 
dicating its strength. At length the time of Christ is reached, 
and we find the condition of things pertaining to religious office 
and rule about as follows. Annas is legitimate High-Priest, de¬ 
barred by the Romans from performing his office, which the chief- 
priest (whom, we have seen, the Jewish system provided in case of 
the High-Priests’s disability), named Caiaphas. exercises. The 
functions have not changed but the whole round of sacrifices, offer¬ 
ings, incense, blessing, consecrating and ruling are all there, as at 
the first institution; and the same three orders—High-Priest, 
Priests and Levites. Some naturalness of Prophecy seems perti¬ 
nent, if not of duty belonging to the office, for it is said of Caia¬ 
phas’ prophecy, ‘ffieing High-Priest that year, he prophesied.” But 
the Prophet is existant, and is manifested in John the Baptist— 
not because of his right to priestly office, but by a personal grace 
and calling of God. There is no reason to see any change in the old 
order, so distinctly seen in the age of Kings, when the prophet 
might or might not be a Priest. The Council is existant also, and 
is a chief factor in the peoples’ religious affairs. As to the As¬ 
sembly, there are Sjmagogues which draw their charter, as it were, 


Historical Types of Government 


105 


out of the old prerogatives of the Assembly, even if their specific 
function is somewhat different; and the actual date of origin as 
late as the Captivity. Thus, we see that Moses has builded well, 
and his system has held until Messiah is on the mountains of Is¬ 
rael, and -the Gentiles are gathering to the sacrifices in Jerusalem. 

Compared with the system of Mechizedech, which was simply 
the old Babylonian system, we find that the general functions and 
orders of ministry were the same, the functions of priestly rule 
less and the hereditary principle of Arabian life had been brought 
into take the place of that freer Babylonian idea that refused to 
be bound by that narrowing law. The Babylonian system regarded 
the God as the Ruler, and the one who “took the hand” of the 
God as the ruler under Him—a kind of ordination ( cheiro-tonein ), 
it would seem. Even the Assyrian monarchs, supreme pontiffs 
over all, were wont to go to Babylon to “take the hand” of Bel. 
There was no obligation of inheritance, for that, under this system, 
gave opportunity rather than right. In the matter of Rule, it 
was only under the Maccabees that the High-Priest was also chief 
civil ruler. When our Lord is called a priest after the order of 
Melchizedech, we can see the references to His being Priest-King 
over (the new) Jerusalem, not by right of genealogy, but because 
of God, who said, “Thou art my Son/ ’ Babylonia was commercial, 
and an Empire, and it is well known how, when a system seeks 
to be world wide, it must be different from one devised for nar¬ 
rower field and conditions. As to Prophecy the status of it at 
Jerusalem under Melchizedech is not given, but in the valley of 
Euphrates and adjacent parts (as, for instance, Balaam’s country) 
the prophets were an institution separate from, and yet connected 
with the elaborate system of Priest-craft, and, as among the He¬ 
brews (and early Christians also), could be women as well as men, 
and laymen as well as priests. 

Compared with the Roman system of our Lord’s day, which 
had been the last building of the civilized world, we find in the 
Roman, as in the Greek, Phoenician, Egyptian and Babylonian, 
traces of those things from which the Hebrew system had freed 
itself, viz.: the union of the functions of the soothsayer, omen- 
reader, charm-worker, etc., with the functions of the Priest; and, 
also, the special Latin development of household worship. But, 


106 


Analytics of Church Government 


in the main, the Prophet was a separate calling, and the Priest¬ 
hood had more or less power of rule, and all the usual functions 
of ministration, and was divided into the three orders of High- 
Priest, or Pontiff, the general Priests and the Attendants. A3 
in Babylon, the Emperor had seized the Ecclesiastical Power, and 
was Chief Pontiff, and also followed both Assyria and Egypt in 
allowing himself to be Deified, through association of ideas, but 
both of these positions were plainly seen to be the usurpations 
of the civil, not the growth of the religious idea. 

There was in the case of Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Israel 
a growth parallel to the more specific ministry—that of the Doc¬ 
trinal Teachers, who constituted the schools of the Magi, Philoso¬ 
phers and Scribes, which, beginning in Babylon and Egypt, very 
early reached their highest development, not long before the be¬ 
ginning of the Christian era. These schools concerned themselves 
greatly about Religion, and were more or less specifically con¬ 
nected with it, especially in the case of the Scribes, through the 
closeness of their sphere to those of Prophecy and Ministration. 
In the case of the Jews, the existance of Scriptures and Synago¬ 
gues, and the peculiarly religious tone of all learning among that 
people, not only gave the Scribe his opportunity, but made his 
province essentially religious. It is almost needless to say, that 
this element of life, so close to religious ministry proper, could 
not but come under the observation and consideration of the 
founder of any new system, especialv one who aimed to gather 
up God’s work in the world through the ages, rather than reject 
the good and bad alike. How, to universalize Semiticisms, those 
already universalized would not be ignored, and it must be re¬ 
membered that Egypt gave to Greece her Philosophers, and Baby¬ 
lon to Israel her Scribes; and Egypt and Babylon had owed the 
flower, if not the root, of their teaching-system to the progres¬ 
sive Semitic element in their population. 

It will not be amiss now to look at the other organizations 
of the world’s life, the civil rule, and the social guild, for much is 
made of these by some modern authors. 

Nomadic life produced the tribal government, and the 
crowded and unprotected valley of the Euphrates, or Nile en- 


Historical Types of Government 


107 


forced that of the village or city. The one inclined to heredi¬ 
tary chieftainship, and the other, especially where trade instincts 
were strong, tended to create elective office and conciliar action. 
Enlargement and aggression calls for the ambitions of a single 
breast. When nomad and citizen united, the rise of kings came 
as naturally as the subjugation of one city by another brought 
the dreams of conquest. In the Euphrates’ valley the dream 
of empire came soonest of all, for opportunity came earlier than 
elsewhere. Defense too in that region required centralization. 
In Egypt also, to some extent, but especially in Babylonia, were 
the problems of unification and civil organization worked out, 
and the Semitic proclivities were all along manifest, until the 
Semitic Assyrian brought the solution of the problem to high 
success. But the Aryan Persian carried it still further, and the 
Greek yet more advanced the standard. When the Roman came, 
the master of consolidated empire had arrived. 

How Rome had begun as a Republic, and cities trend to that 
form of government as often as opportunity allows. However, 
Republics find size a terrible drawback, and when Rome extend¬ 
ed her citizenship to Italy she sealed the fate of her government. 
Up to that time Republics and similar forms had been confined 
to small territories. The Roman experiment emphasized the 
limits nature placed, in that age on the system, and Rome 
changed to that unique system admitting of Free Cities and 
Proconsular Provinces, side by side with those under direct Im¬ 
perial control; which system was wonderfully evolutionary and 
as little revolutionary as any governmental change that has ever 
taken place. Republics and Satrapies, Despotisms and Indepen¬ 
dencies were all mixed together, but with so much order and 
system, and under such supreme imperial control, that the world 
still wonders at the Roman genius. Every elementary form 
seemed to be developed, and in full flower, under the domination 
of Rome, and chiefest of all lessons made manifest was this—the 
wisdom of allowing and not crushing the natural tendencies of 
the numerous peoples. The Consent of the governed was eag¬ 
erly sought in certain ways, even if authority reigned over all. 
Had' taxation, and the burden of government been mild, the 


108 


Analytics of Church Government 


worlds admiration of the Roman Empire would be more pro¬ 
found. 

Palestine had full experience with the various features of 
Roman government, just as nearly or quite all the previous sys¬ 
tems had been exhibited within her borders. Republican forms 
of civil government had never invaded her territory, it is true, 
but when a province of the Republic, she had seen them at a 
distance, and felt some of their effects, and she had seen in the 
Greek cities of the Decapolis certain free institutions. 

As to guilds: It must be to Babylonia also that we must look 
for the origin of these. If it be allowable to speculate in line 
with the meagre amount of positive evidence, we can see that two 
features, characteristic of that land, lead us to that conclusion. 
The first is the vast amount of brick building in that country, 
necessitating great throngs of masons. The other is, that slav¬ 
ery existed in the special form of using the inhabitants of ad¬ 
joining cities, after any of the inter-urban wars that so marked 
that country before the consolidation of several cities into a 
kingdom, for domestic and public slaves. These would be just 
as skilled as any in the art of brick making and building. The 
wage question became therefore, an acute one, and the walled 
cities, great numbers of masons, and slave competition were as 
much calculated to force free citizens into combinations to keep 
up wages as any conditions we can imagine. The civilization 
of those days was quite equal to the production of organizations 
of workmen. Such things would not arise except out of neces¬ 
sity, and it is the necessity that we see in that land first of all 
lands. As between Egypt and Babylonia, we see the climate of 
Babylonia, with its rains and cold, the great number of cities 
that contended for precedence, the long postponement of con¬ 
solidated power, and the character of the slaves taken from war¬ 
ring peoples, all stand in favor of the need for organization aris¬ 
ing first in Babylonia. From there the seed was sown, and, proba¬ 
bly long ere the evidence of it comes to light, sprang up in all 
lands that offered possibilities. We have evidence that when iron 
came on the scene, the secret of its extraction from mere red and 
heavy rock, and of its working, was retained in families and 


Historical Types of Government 109 

tribes for a long time, and possibly in passing beyond, it did so 
under the guard of secret association. But iron was a late dis¬ 
covery, and in as much as it is well known that Guilds, etc., did 
exist among the Babylonians amid many trades that long ante¬ 
dated iron working, we need not hesitate to place the formation 
of associations to the credit of the social and protective impulses, 
rather than to the secret-guarding motives of prudence. If 
iron making secrets had caused the beginning of these bodies, the 
elements of secresy, more or less developed in all of them, would 
be perfectly accounted for, but this seems to be the addition that 
came after the social and protective features had called them 
into existence. It is the craft of masonry more than all other 
crafts or trades that seems to suggest the principles that per¬ 
vaded these Guilds. The cement that bound together hetero¬ 
geneous elements into one harmonious whole, the level, square, 
and plumb, the one architect, the definite plan on the trestle 
board, and the orders and degrees arising out of classification and 
superintendance, are all eloquent symbols of the principles these 
societies inculcated and exacted. At any rate, they were or¬ 
ganized on broad democratic principles corresponding very close¬ 
ly to the symbolism of the masonic craft. As to secrecy, there 
were trade secrets on every side, and, doubtless, the possibility of 
guarding these secrets was proved long before that peculiarly val¬ 
uable secret of iron making put so great a premium on such an 
object. These Guilds could ramify over the earth in the midst 
of civil governments of all types, and could be guided and con¬ 
trolled from one center with great precision. The elective, auto¬ 
cratic and conciliar features of government all had place and play 
in their practical workings. 

Finally, there was in Palestine, at the beginning of our era, 
a type of religious organization that, doubtless, had its lessons. 
There must have been many sectarian organizations in the an¬ 
cient world—organizations intended to isolate certain aspects or 
views of life, morals, doctrines, or worship; or, to regroup the 
same. Such bodies always arise from the strong flow of one 
current, but always are compelled to resist the strong flow of 
others. They must break the dam, but are compelled themselves 


110 


Analytics of Church Government 


to build dams to restrain the waters they draw o5. Hence they 
present a view of devices designed to check the working of the 
very principle to which they owe their existence. They must 
advocate great freedom in order to win, but use strong restraint 
in order to keep. Thus the Essenes of Palestine presented very 
democratic ideas, and that, too, in the essential sphere of re¬ 
ligion, but a centralization of power that fell with irresistable 
force on the member in every department of his life. The elec¬ 
tive principle was carried even to the election of priests, but they 
had courts of Justice (which, under their system, would include 
under their jurisdiction about everything in the life of the peo¬ 
ple) of no less than one hundred members, whose decisions were 
immutable. Democratic provision for a Tyranny is very old 
indeed. 

Thus, in the time of our Lord, there was, on the worlds 
stage, an exhibition of the ways of men, in the matter of gov¬ 
ernment, that ranged through all the forms except the modern 
Constitutional. The Roman, indeed, had the beginnings of that, 
and, doubtless, there was much in the Guild system that came 
very near to it. Now, the ways of men would have value to the 
Divine Organizer, as well as to the human, for His purpose must 
be the selection of Principles not only conformable to other con¬ 
siderations, but also to the material upon which He has to im¬ 
pose it, not by violence, but by nature, as it were. 

The course of Ecclesiastical things, and their present stage, 
could not be ignored, to say the least. Why had they come thus 
far, if not to bring certain things to His hand on their current? 
Semitic genius had wrought in order to turn over its work, and 
its work was not to be set aside. But these currents of govern¬ 
ment parallel to that of the ecclesiastical, what is their meaning? 

It is common to urge that Christianity borrowed certain fea¬ 
tures from this or that source, but this view is short sighted. 
Certainly there are principles that run through certain phases 
ere Christianity arrived, but that system would come, not as an 
eclectic borrower, but as a gatherer of things prepared for it 
by development in broad tracts, and whose existance was only 
more or less testified to by this or that institution. Thus the 


Historical Types of Government 


111 


popular side of government, with its elective and conciliar fea¬ 
tures, had its roots in all government, and only more conspicu¬ 
ous illustrations in the case of Guilds, or Sects, or Colleges, or 
Roman Institutions. If Christianity were going to take, in part, 
that element, She could find it in tribal and city polity, in trade 
guild, in sect enclosures, in the schools, in Mosaic economy and 
in the civil polity of great States. And because it is found in 
all, we are sure it is not lacking in the Church of Christ. It 
was not that She spied a likely feature here or there and took 
it, but that She looked through all systems to basic principles 
of life and found them. She would have Her own arrange¬ 
ments, but She was not going to invent or borrow Her princi¬ 
ples. They would be Universal principles, testified to by growth 
and fruit after ages of existence. 

In the pre-existing systems She saw Prophecy, Ministra¬ 
tion, Rule and Teaching growing up side by side—universal 
needs, and, somehow or other, always supplied. She, too, would 
supply them. 

In preexisting systems She saw Authority concentrated, 
nevermind howsoever derived, so as to move swiftly, with dig¬ 
nity and effectively; as irreversible even when exercised by the 
Essenes’ Council of One Hundred, as when issuing from a Per¬ 
sian or Median King. She, too, would give Authority the seat 
of dignity and efficiency, and enable it to act with readiness. 

In all systems She saw the people striving for utterance, 
seeking an organ for pent up feelings. She, too, would ena¬ 
ble the vox populi to proclaim itself. 

In preexisting systems She saw counsel as much needed as 
decision, and the counsel (or Consent) of the masses who might 
be under the decision the desire of all upon whom rested the 
burden of Authority. 

In all government, of every kind whatsoever, She saw re¬ 
sults obtained by battle of contending forces, and issuing accord¬ 
ing to the plans of neither contestant, but according to a higher 
mind and wisdom. 

As to forms, none had been permanent so far, or tested on 
a world scale. Their very adaptation to necessary changes would 


112 


Analytics of Church Government 


make them all over into something very different. What particu¬ 
lar form can we take from those days as the everlastingly perma¬ 
nent? Could any of the old bottles hold the new wine? The 
Roman government was a new experiment itself—an experiment 
in the effort to bind together old forms. It could hardly give 
a pattern in forms. The Jewish Church was organized for a 
small country, and on tribal and hereditary principles, so that, 
while a feature here or there might remain, the system could 
not. The Schools of those ages are out of the question, as to 
forms. The Sects were altogether too narrow for world condi¬ 
tions. The Guilds were far from having an organization that 
was suited to bear the weight of a religious system. Their offi¬ 
cials had never had the duties of Ministration or Pophecy in 
conjunction with their own special functions. Finally, there 
was no one which altogether gathered up the past in the manner 
that it would become incumbent on the new creation to do. Be¬ 
yond question, the very forms existent would help to illustrate 
the principles that had been developed, and some would do so 
better than others, each one serving for some separate point bet¬ 
ter than the others, but none was fitted to be the pattern, and 
the beginner of a new system would have more to hope from a 
discriminating faculty than an imitative one. 

Yet, is not this very plain? That the world’s experimenta¬ 
tions along religious lines would be of more service than those 
along lines where the ends in view would be so diffuse. If 
the latter would have value from the fact of their breadth, would 
not the former gain from specific directness? The great Semi¬ 
tic genius had culminated in its contribution of the Mosaic sys¬ 
tem, which lasted through desert life, the unsettled conditions of 
the Judges, the stress of Israel’s concentration into nationality, 
the disruption of the Kingdom, the Captivity, Restoration, peri¬ 
ods of subjection to foreign domination, the Maccabee exalta¬ 
tion of the Priesthood, and, finally the Roman interference; and 
it delivered to the age of Christ its original treasures practically 
unscathed. It seemed to claim attention from every standpoint; 
and even if it could not claim to be the final word to the world 
in the line of ecclesiastical arrangement, yet it could speak for 
both God and man with a voice likely to be heard and heeded. 


Historical Types of Government 


113 


First: It could exhibit the Aaronic settlement of the large 
question of the amount and sphere of Rule that should belong 
to the Priesthood, and the manner in which this ideal could be 
held to through the ages of trial. 

Secondly: It could show that powers of Ministration, Pro¬ 
phecy, Rule and Teaching could all be combined acceptably and 
naturally. 

Thirdly: That representative and popular elements like the 
Assembly and Synagogue could be of great Strength to 
the ruling Priesthood. 

Fourthly: That worship, as in the Synagogue, could proceed 
along lines other than that of sacrifice without harming, but, much 
rather, helping that principle. 

When we remember that the Master first founded His king¬ 
dom before He appointed officers, and distinctly separated that 
kingdom from the world and its kingdoms, before He gave the 
officers any power in that kingdom, the careful isolation of 
Aaron’s sphere by Moses is recalled. 

At any rate, we now have the various contributory lines of 
development, in the matter of government, before our view, and 
they form important conditions that must be kept in sight when 
we come to see the new system projected on the proper back¬ 
ground. Some things must have led up to the Christian system. 
Some things must be different from all that went before. Some 
principles must run through both the past and that which was 
to succeed. Government, as well as Ecclesiastical Government 
would have its lessons, but Ecclesiastical Government can not 
but be regarded as specially preparatory. 

We ought now' to be ready to plunge into the midst of the 
direct examination of what was really done in the way of giving 
to the World an Ecclesiastical Government, adapted as well to 
it as to the great cause of Righteousness. 




part UH 

Evidence an& Structure 

♦ 


4 










CHAPTER I 


©be (Blaster’s ©wit acts 

Doubtless, the rest of Scripture, and History also, might 
throw some light upon the Acts of the Master, but, in the main, 
the clear and simple accounts of the Gospels, in their fourfold 
form, set forth some things too plainly for questioning; and it 
is the purpose of this chapter to deal with the indubitable acts 
of the Founder of the Church, as there presented, by way of 
gaining a first definite shaping of the positive side of this discus¬ 
sion. Hitherto nothing has been adduced as fitting the condi¬ 
tions of the long analysis, and it is time we were beginning to 
put forward the synthesis, for which this analysis ought to have 
prepared. And yet our analysis is far from being over; the 
analytical method must still guide us, only it is time to gain a 
view of the positive things to be tested. 

Now, when the Master came on the World’s stage as one 
about to become a founder of the world’s system of government, 
there would naturally arise the question of the relation of his 
organization to those already existing. These were on the 
ground, both the civil and the religious, and they had to be dealt 
with. He was born a member of an organization which claimed 
God as its author, and in its subtility, and beauty of lines and 
harmonies, and in its strength and endurance, as declared after 
long existance, supported the claim. What now would He do 
with this Church of God? And as touching the old and ever- 
to-be-new question of sphere—as between the civil and religious 
contentions over predominance, how would He mark out the 
scope of His Kingdom? Before the lines of inward polity could 
be laid down there were these questions needing solution. 

Therefore, it is important to note in connection with the 
first of these questions that He declared Himself in no uncer¬ 
tain way. There can be no question at all that He decided the 
fate of the Jewish system by two acts. He was of the tribe of 
Judah, not Levy, and yet He was Himself to be the first in the 


118 


Analytics of Church Government 


line of the ministry of the new order. He thus rooted up the 
hereditary principle of Moses with most significant change. He 
did not merely transfer the priestly line to another tribe, but 
made the whole principle of heredity null and void. His other 
procedure, indicative of His purpose, was to constitute Himself 
the Victim of Sacrifice (which could only once be offered), 
and thus abolish any further offering of blood. When then He 
ended the work of the High, Priest (for that official's great 
office and duty was the sacrifice on the day of Atonement) and 
struck down the principle of heredity, He clearly showed that 
He designed not the continuance of the Mosaic system but the 
end. There was still room for the carrying over into the new 
much that glorified the old, but the sign was given that the new 
would be new indeed. Whatever, therefore, of the old might 
be found in the new would be there not of law or its own force, 
but because adopted and instituted afresh. 

Thus did the Master gain free room for establishing His 
own, unhampered by the bonds of a past system. It is need¬ 
less to say to Christians that He fulfilled the old before He 
instituted the new. 

On the other point, that concerning His dealings with the 
possible trammels of entanglement with the civil side of govern¬ 
ment, He gained freedom with equal hand. 

He was of the Royal line, and took the Priestly office into 
that of the Kingly; which would look like the renewal of the old 
system of the union of Church and State, with the State as the 
dominant side, but His declaration “My kingdom is not of this 
world/ ’ sets His purpose fully in view. Nothing indeed could 
more completely show the flight of the Church away from the 
entanglements with the Civil power of Earth than the course of 
the founder. If the kingdom and its King is not in conflict 
or alliance, but utterly separate, and of another sphere of life, 
certainly no officer can be. Undoubtedly it is true that the tak¬ 
ing of the Priestly into the Kingly shows the subordination of 
the Priestly, but it is to the Divine King; and this union with 
kingship in the Divine order precludes most effectually the union 
with it in the worldly. Judaic Theocracy is fulfilled by this 
means as well, but especially is the Civil power of earth kept at 


The Master’s Own Acts 


119 


a distance. There can be no manner of doubt that the placing 
of two kingdoms side by side in a world like this, the kingdom 
of Christ and the civil power of the day and hour, leaves room 
for many a conflict still, but these must occur simply in the 
course of the adjustment of affairs of mutual concern, and it 
is a wonderful gain to have the religious power checked at every 
turn by the very terms of its only charter. The civil power 
must needs be tyrannous, but the master commanded tribute to 
be paid, and forbade all those ways of the world by which alone 
the civil power can be met. And, it is to be observed, not 
only are these forbidden in any struggle with the civil power, 
but as well in all internal matters the essential nature of the 
Divine Kingdom most direct the means and methods. 

Here, then, are three acts, by which the Prince of Wisdom 
settled for all time and beyond all question the matter of the 
bondage of His Church, and gained its perfect freedom. It is 
not by word, but by act. He made Himself the source of the 
Priestly line; He took the Priestly office into the Kingly; He 
offered Himself as the victim under the old Judaic system. 
Thereby we see settled the relations of His new Institution to 
all the powers that then existed. The way was perfectly clear, 
after this farewell to what barriers beset Him from the past, to 
begin the actual carrying out of His own ideals. Yet He had 
broken with nothing. He attacked nothing. He was at enmity 
with nothing. He was free to use all, to gather from all, to 
fulfill all. Ko man was ever so wise even after a human way. 
Having fulfilled both letter and ideal of the Mosaic it could not 
reproach Him; having placed His kingdom and its sphere out 
of all rivalry with the kingdoms of the world, they could only 
marvel at their deliverance from the old terrible enemy, and 
bless Him. 

It is not then to the structure of His after-building that 
w T e need look for the things that separate the system that He 
founded from any and all others, but to these fundamentals of 
His life. He differentiated the foundations and felt the free¬ 
dom during all the after courses. Anything that might be used 
would come into such relation that it would lose nothing by re- 


120 Analytics of Church Government 

semblance to parts of other structures. The kingdom not of 
this world must needs use everything after a heavenly manner, 
or lose its glory. 

After this leave-taking of these preliminary problems we see 
the Founder arranging certain details of His system. Not that 
in point of time there was sequence as above, but the logic of 
His adjustments was based upon the preliminaries of the settle¬ 
ments which were all the time in His mind. 

He began His ministry by giving signs of His authority and 
power, and necessarily gathered around Himself those that be¬ 
lieved in Him. Some of these, or perhaps all, were baptized (by 
particular ones whom He had selected for His ultimate purposes, 
ordained ( epoiese ), and named Apostles,) with a baptism which 
we presume was similar to John’s, and only symbolical—not at 
all equivalent to that afterwards instituted in the name of 
the Trinity. They constituted the mass of His followers. From 
these He selected twelve, whom we see were afterwards endowed 
with much greater functions of office than at first. At first, 
just as His own work was preliminary, so too was theirs. They 
baptized in the way mentioned, and preached the limited Gos¬ 
pel that the Kingdom was “at hand” and all must repent. Be¬ 
sides these functions of office they had personal gifts of signs 
and miracles, etc. In as much as to these men were spoken, 
afterwards, words which conveyed a much higher function of 
office, we are compelled to discriminate between their first work 
and function and that to which they afterwards fell heir; though 
there is no great point to be made about that in this discussion. 
There were also seventy others sent out to do exactly as these 
Twelve, but we are not told that they baptized. Their message 
was the same simple one, and their powers of signs and miracles 
identical. These returned, and we do not read of them being 
again sent, or of further bestowal of the high powers afterwards 
given the Twelve, so that we are left to inference—very imagina¬ 
tive inference at that—if we should attempt to say what further 
use was made of them. 

This whole stage of the Master’s work seems, however, to 
be put preparatory; whether we judge by what is written of His 


The Master’s Own Acts 


121 


own part, or that of the Twelve, or that of the Seventy. Even 
His ministry had to have its stages, and they are evident to the 
reader. The Twelve seem at this stage to act as assistants, 
whereas, afterwards, they fall heir to His position at the head 
of the work; and the work itself is changed. The whole organi¬ 
zation of the Church is inchoate, and postponed to the day when, 
after the sifting of the times of doubt, there would be as a 
nucleus that small body gathered with the Twelve in the “one 
place,” and the Holy Ghost would come upon them. 

All of this is recounted so as not to be left out. Nothing 
hinges on it, but it is to be kept separate in the mind from 
what is to follow. It had to be treated, and its place assigned. 
It leads up historically to those other acts of the Lord which de¬ 
velop the inchoate, unformed mass of material He had gathered, 
and more or less prepared for final action. 

When we come to those supreme acts of organization, we 
find ourselves face to face with a remarkable condition. The 
official part is in full evidence, but the membership part only 
constructively present; and words are directed to official author¬ 
ity, and there is an absence of notice of membership prerogative 
that we are far from expecting. It happens so, and therefore 
must be noted, whatever lessons are to be drawn from the fact, 
if any. There, in every Gospel narrative, we see the officers 
called, separated, trained and endowed with powers, while there 
is no attempt at all to separate a membership from the masses 
of the people around. In the group of officers the membership 
exists constructively, but the whole separation of a membership 
as such, at once distinct from the world and the official circle, 
is left to be accomplished after the day of Pentecost. 

There had been on the one side the attachment of a number 
of personal followers, and there was on the other a gathering and 
training of the special Twelve—a leaving of the many unorgan¬ 
ized, and a dealing with the Twelve as the nucleus of organiza¬ 
tion. It was very near the Ascension and almost as His last 
word that He said, “Go ye, disciple, teach, baptize” i. e., form 
a membership. The Twelve were a unit, but the membership 
an inchoate, scattered, following yet to be gathered and com¬ 
pacted. So it was to the Twelve He spoke not as constituting 


122 


Analytics of Church Government 


a compacted membership, however small, but as the officers who 
would perform in His stead the work of collecting and organiz¬ 
ing the body of members, after He was taken from them. 

If, now, we will take our records, the four Gospels, and 
gather thence the distinct gifts of power and function, as made 
to the Twelve, we will gain an insight into that marvellous and 
astounding wisdom that makes the Son of Man seem to us none 
other than the Son of God. He stands forth as the Organizer— 
about to do constructive work on ground and foundations pre¬ 
pared, as we have seen, with truly Divine prescience and saga¬ 
city. He is to grapple with all the problems which we have 
analysed—Grace and Faith; Authority and Consent; the dis¬ 
tribution of Functions; essentials and non-essentials; historic 
systems and forms of Government; past accomplishments, natural 
proclivities, and the genius of people yet to come; these and 
many more. He is about to build that which must last till the 
end of the world, and be thoroughly adaptive to each and every 
age of men. He is about to make a home for every race and 
every class. The unity of the Heavens and the diversity of the 
Earth must equally be stamped upon it. The most stupendous 
task of statesmanship demands accomplishment to the finest de¬ 
gree of perfection. 

There are a number of words that our Lord spoke to these 
Twelve which, when grouped together in connection with the 
subject in hand, tell a very plain story for themselves, and re¬ 
veal almost as plainly as we Oould desire the mind of the Mas¬ 
ter. 

In St. Matthew’s Gospel, first in the sixteenth and then in 
the eighteenth chapter. He tells St. Peter and then all the Twelve 
of certain strange powers of binding and loosing that He will 
give to them. St. Matthew’s Gospel is written along after St. 
Matthew has been exercising without question the full powers 
of an apostle, so that these words are not set forth in his narra¬ 
tive to vindicate the extent of his authority, but rather given as 
one of the prominent and important sayings of our Lord that 
should not be lost to posterity. Both promises of power are 
spoken about the time of His Transfiguration, at the time when 


# 


The Master’s Own Acts 123 

He began to prepare the Twelve for His end, and their begin¬ 
ning of work in His place. In speaking to St. Peter He uses 
the future, “I will give to Thee/’ and in speaking to all together, 
He still uses the future, saying “ye shall bind,” but the passage 
does not come to the issue as to whether there is a present ac¬ 
tual bestowal of that authority, or just an indication of what 
will be when their time comes to act. However, in St. John’s 
Gospel, when the risen Lord comes into the chamber where they 
(but not all—Judas was dead and Thomas absent) were gath¬ 
ered, He breathes on them, and gives them the Holy Ghost (to 
be manifested later at Pentecost), and speaks the words in the 
present tense, “whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted,” 
and uses the restricted form “sins” instead of the broader “what¬ 
soever” (ye shall bind). The change to the present tense agrees 
with his prefatory announcement. “As my Father hath sent 
Me, even so send I you,” as though the time had come for actual 
bestowal. As to the change of expression, from “binding” to 
“remitting sins,” they can not be very far apart, howeveT thank¬ 
ful we must be to have the explicit statement as to the matter 
of sins. The difference we will see later on. 

If we regard the two passages in St. Matthew, as promises 
and not gifts, then and there completed, we will find that all 
the words of scripture that set forth the powers of the apostles 
belong to the time between the Last Supper and a time near the 
Ascension. There seems no good reason for objecting to such 
a view. 

Let us now group together the positive commissions which 
Jesus gave His twelve Apostles. 

First of all in point of time, He celebrates the passover, and 
taking the Bread and Cup He institutes His own Memorial 
Feast. It was to be perpetual, and just as He then blessed and 
break and gave, so, afterwards, they were to bless and break and 
give the two elements of the feast, bread and wine, in His name. 
“Do this” may or may not mean “sacrifice this,” but it certainly 
does mean and must of necessity mean that, He being gone, they 
were to bless, break, give, and themselves eat and idrink the 
bread and wine in memory of Him. The supper was to be re- 


124 


Analytics of Church Government 


peated as a memorial with all the acts above named involved in 
the repetition. There could be no eating without blessing and 
breaking. His own place as the blesser, the breaker and dis¬ 
tributor was to be taken by them, and the authority for so doing 
would rest upon His command, ‘‘Do this.” We will afterwards 
see the bearing of “bless” and “break” and “give,” performed in 
memorial rite; it is enough here to merely note the bestowal of 
the right to occupy His place at the Feast. This most signifi¬ 
cant gift is not made to one, but to each. Nor can we say it 
is made to each as simple member, not officer, without great as¬ 
sumptions. The plain indications of the opposite are these, that 
He rose from the table, girded Himself, washed their feet and 
delivered His plain words concerning those “that exercise 
authority ,” ending by saying, “I appoint unto you a kingdom 
as My Father appointed unto me.” 

These latter words convey another part of their commis¬ 
sion. “I appoint unto you a kingdom,” are words of the strong¬ 
est kind of import in any case, but when taken in connection with 
all that our Lord revealed concerning His kingdom (in the world 
but not of the world), they almost amaze us. He goes on, “That 
ye might sit on thrones judging.” Of course, they had yet that 
reward to win, and Judas failed then and there, but the gift of 
rule here afforded opportunity for winning larger rule there. 
The point is—the gift of rule over the affairs of the Kingdom 
here. The old Judges of Israel would rise to the mind of the 
men to whom this term was spoken as naturally as it flowed from 
that of the Master. They, the Judges, were men who were raised 
up through fitness, i. e., came to their power through merit. 
Gideon, we may remember, all but reached a throne. 

Next we come to the passage in St. John’s Gospel above 
mentioned. The Crucifixion is over, and the Lord is risen. He 
suddenly enters, breathes on them and speaks—“Receive ye the 
Holy Ghost; Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto 
them.” We have seen something already concerning this pas¬ 
sage and those of St Matthew, and now further, while this text 
uses the word “sins,” there is a force in the expressions in the 
others “bind on earth” and “be bound in Heaven” that ought 


The Master’s Own Acts 


125 


not to be missed. Taking the three passages together we gain 
a full view that no one of them taken alone gives. The term 
“earth” brings us to see that the apostles’ power was intended to 
be exercised in the world. The term “sins” prevents us from 
shrinking from including even that limit in our mental concep¬ 
tion. The term “bound in Heaven” carries the strange power 
fully as far as Judgment Day. 

The meaning of the whole grant of authority has been much 
disputed because men have tried to say just what limits there are 
to the powers given, and to particularize about the specific con¬ 
tents, but this much is certain—there is a grant of great author¬ 
ity in the spiritual region, and Heaven will be behind them in 
its exercise. We can leave the question of what particular exer¬ 
cises are involved, and how far reaching they may be, if only 
we see that these men were not sent out to use their office on 
the strength of what they were as men, but that in authority, 
as in preaching, they would act ambassadorially. Even as far 
as the region of “sins” they would have this ambassadorial and 
not personal aspect. Specific exercise must be guided by the 
conditions imposed by many considerations. “Whatsoever” is 
a large word, but it could hardly reach out of the religious sphere 
in this case. Nor can we suppose that Heaven can be dragged 
into the judgments of men contrary to its own righteousness. 
Nevertheless there stand the words of the Master, and the very 
least meaning that can be given is that He sent them with an 
authority far transcending any that the world could give, or 
their own personalities warrant, even the authority of God. 
Their work and life would lead them to deal with the inner spiri¬ 
tual matters of men’s lives, sins especially and Heaven would 
be behind them as they exercised their office. 

St. John tells us of certain words spoken just before the 
Ascension to St. Peter alone—“Feed my lambs”—“Feed my 
sheep,” and these texts seem to carry us straight into the Koman 
controversy while we are trying to avoid controversy. It may 
be enough to say that the powers we have seen bestowed, taken 
with those given about the same time, include every idea in¬ 
volved in feeding as a power bestowed or vested right located; 


126 


Analytics of Church Government 


and that the force of the Master’s words to St. Peter is tenfold 
more when they are taken as an exhortation than as a gift of 
power. Of course, if there was any way to allot “lambs” and 
“sheep” to different classes or orders, w r e might work in some 
idea of a special gift here intended, but interpretation can not 
reach as far as that. The ground is too indeterminate. A man 
might persuade himself that lambs meant this and sheep that, 
but the scholar has nothing to build on that even looks solid. To 
come before the world and dogmatize on such a point is not after 
the manner of scholars careful of their paths. On the other 
hand, it is the very quintescence of naturalness that the anxious 
Master, about to leave his flock, should turn to one or all of them 
and say with such intense accent “Feed my sheep.” St Peter’s 
sin, his position as natural leader, his former dispute for posi¬ 
tion (it w'as, probably, between himself and James and John), 
and the tendencies of his disposition drew to him the warning 
exhortation. “Simon, Son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than 
these?” Then, let this be the care of thy heart and life—the 
feeding of my sheep. This much is just must mean. If it goes any 
further, so as to become a grant of power it can reach no higher 
than the term “feeding” which, indeed, was common to them 
all, by the virtue of the other grants. That the sheep were the 
Apostles and the lambs the rest of the Master’s following is a 
bare surmise so far as the context enables us to see. 

We come to the last commission given to these men—that 
at His last talks with them, in Galilee, just before His Ascen¬ 
sion. It was the commission to Preach, Teach and Baptize in 
all the world, and He said that in these works and functions of 
office they would have Heaven behind them. “Lo! I am with 
you alway, even unto the end of the world.” It is to be ob¬ 
served that they were to preach the Gospel, and teach “all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you ,” i. e. y His commandments. 
As Moses gave the law, moral and ceremonial, so He had given 
the exposition of the spiritual law, and they were to teach this 
to those they made disciples. 

Here, then are the powers given the Twelve—to Preach, to 
Baptize, to Teach, to Bless, Break and Give the Memorial of His 
death (blood shedding), to exercise Rule outwardly over the af- 


The Master’s Own Acts 


127 


fairs of the Kingdom, and to Bind and Loose even in the spirit¬ 
ual matters of men’s lives. 

We might stop here, because the Gospels end here, but there 
is another power brought into isolated view in the book of Acts 
that probably ought also to be brought into separate notice here— 
the power of blessing people as well a3 the bread of the Memorial. 
The gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands, 
whether for ordination or Pentecostal blessings, shows that not 
only power of appointment vested in them, but also power of 
Blessing. The former we would naturally include in the right 
to govern the affairs of the Church, but the latter is distinct and 
refers back to the old Patriarchal regime, showing how even that 
system was gathered into the summarizing scope of our Lord’s 
institutions. 

Coming now to the putting of all these together, we find 
the Master taking twelve men and sending them forth with the 
worlcl.old powers of Prophecy, Ministration and Rule concen¬ 
trated. Prophet and Priest were united, and Ruling powers be- 
stoAved as well. Then the Teaching powers that more lately had 
been illustrated in the world by that separate order of—Magi in 
Babylon, Philosophers in Greece, Schoolmen in Egypt and Doc¬ 
tors and Scribes in Palestine were added. Finally, there was 
not only the Rule over the outward affairs, but there were powers 
bestowed reaching as far into the inner life of the members as 
sins. 

Ministration would include Baptism, with its involved right 
of examination: Worship, with its prayers, hymn-singing (when 
they had sung an hymn), memorial offering, blessing and break¬ 
ing of bread and blessing of wine, giving and eating these; and 
Blessing—both the simple blessing of the people and the more 
special Gift of the Holy Ghost. 

Rule, as we have seen, had two sides—the care of outward 
things and the care of souls. 

Prophecy was in its full degree as to preaching, and could 
reach even as far as writing Scripture, but was denuded of ora¬ 
cles, sooth saying and all fetich ways and doings. 

Thus was all the past dealt with, and its treasures taken 
over, and its lessons gathered up. There was a concentration of 


128 


Analytics of Church Government 


all into one. The Apostle was Priest-King, and Priest-Prophet, 
and Teacher. Later there might be a broadening and some 
separation into Prophets, Teachers, Helps, Governments, etc., but 
at the time of the Ascension these men stood possessed of all in 
concentration. 

There was some change from older things of course, and 
this was notably the case in the matter of the passing, with 
Christ’s death, of the Bloody-sacrifices. Those had been the 
engrossing acts of worship, and absorbed the work of the priests, 
but over against blessing, hilling, giving and eating a Passover 
lamb, for instance, had come blessing, Ireahing, giving and eat¬ 
ing the bread of the Memorial. The breaking in memorial rite 
was as priestly an act as the killing, and the rest are the same. 
It were vain to declare a function of priesthood abandoned 
by reason of this change, since the breaking refers so con¬ 
fessedly to Christ’s death or killing. The old priest-king 
Melchizedech had brought forth bread and wine, which was a 
prophecy the Lord did not in His day disregard. Bread and 
wine could f< shew forth the Lord’s death,” subsequently as well 
as lambs could typify it beforehand. It is the standing in acts 
of Ministration between God and Man, blessing and giving to 
Man, killing or breaking in typical act before God that priest¬ 
hood essentially consists. 

We have now seen the bestowal of all functions of religious 
office upon the Twelve, but it remains to be seen how the Mas¬ 
ter dealt with the problem of the type of government committed 
to them. The kingdom was not of this world, but it was never¬ 
theless a “kingdom.” The priestly office had been taken into 
the kingly, not the kingly added to that of priest. Judah’s 
Son had taken to Himself the offices of Levy. In Christ all is 
clear, but when He passed the Kingdom to their hands, saying, 
“I appoint unto you a kingdom as my Father appointed unto 
Me,” how did He adjust the matters plainly needing adjust¬ 
ment? There were twelve men to whom He spake. Again, we 
have seen how all types of administration had existed in the 
world—how did our Master select among them. 

First of all: Let us run over the record. We have spread 
out already the various commissions of authority, and ought to 


The Master’s Own Acts 


129 


have no difficulty in seeing certain things. In the first place, 
the promise to St. Peter and to the Twelve (about the same 
time) wait for consummation till after the Resurrection when 
He enters, breathes upon them and commissions them all. The 
difference in words, to the extent that He says in the promise to 
St Peter, “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom,” has 
not engaged us hitherto, but may now. The powers of preach¬ 
ing, baptizing, binding and loosing, and governing the earthly 
affairs cover so much ground that it is hard to see where any¬ 
thing more can come in. This first promise of keys is amply ful¬ 
filled when these various powers are bestowed; for what power 
in the promise is left ungiven, when we have told the full tale 
of gifts. There is no matter of words to quibble over here. It 
is after translation of words into powers that we see no room 
left for the powers of the keys to differ from the powers involved 
in the other gifts. The keys have something to do, we must 
suppose, with opening and locking the door of the kingdom in 
its earthly life, and all of this, whatever it be, must surely be 
found between the limits of preaching and baptizing, exercising 
control of affairs, and that care of souls involved in remitting 
and retaining sins. At any rate, our Lord waits till the very 
last to actually commission, and then He commissions all. It 
is noteworthy that He must appoint to the duties and glories of 
the Last Supper at the time of its celebration, and so also His 
appointment to the kingdom takes place when yet He can gird 
Himself and wash their feet without unseemliness, to teach the 
lesson of their mode of Rule, but the rest is all left until He 
has risen and the time is at hand for them to act. 

Secondly: It is very plain that it is not to the Twelve in 
any collective capacity that the gifts are made. It is not a 
body which is given powers that no one of the body wholly pos¬ 
sesses, but it is a gift to each personally (and entailing personal 
risk of a “throne”) that we behold. When they shall meet in 
a body, it will be a body in possession of its powers, because its 
component parts have those powers, but each one apart from the 
body possesses them as well. It is not of course, denied that 
weight is gained by concert of action. The point is that the 


130 


Analytics of Church Government 


powers are not given to the body of men, but to each member 
of the body. If it were given to the body, then each one would, 
apart from the body, be without power. If it be given to each, 
then, in their coming together to form a body, they would bring 
into that body all the power each possessed, and also the weight 
of common action. That then the body would transcend any 
one member would be true enough, but it is plain that this is 
due to weight of units and not to separate and transcendant 
powers. 

To the body of Apostles—the college, our Lord gave noth¬ 
ing. No questions were reserved for such a body, no amenable¬ 
ness of members alluded to, no functions created. What pow¬ 
ers He gave He gave to each of the Twelve. And yet by this 
very course. He made collegiate action most acceptable. If 
men having authority meet together to consult about the wisdom of 
common action already within their power, such conciliar action 
is admirable. But, if men having authority are going to meet 
in a body clothed with authority greater than any of them, then 
they must also find an executive for that authority. A decree 
is only a decree: without an executive it is nothing. If none 
of them equal the Council in the one power, none can equal it 
in the other, except as an agent of it. Our Lord certainly did 
not make them agents of a Council, but agents of Himself. If 
they should set aside this role, and play the other, only harm 
could result, because their highest powers would then rest on a 
commission from a Council, and their lower on that from Christ, 
The Conciliar system must ever encounter the difficulty of a 
commensurate Executive. The only proper sphere for a Coun¬ 
cil is to determine on action already within the sphere of its 
component parts to execute. It is a device for gaining wisdom 
and dignity, not for acquisition of unusual powers. 

Then again, a council is not amenable to punishment. It 
is unreachable—an aggregation not an organism. The Master 
gave authority, but held His Judgment up to view over those to 
whom He committed the kingdom. The sense of responsibil¬ 
ity is absolutely essential in the sphere of government. Person¬ 
ality reaches to a point where a transient, collective, dispersable, 


The Master’s Own Acts 


131 


unpunishable mass can never attain. The Master’s choice for 
highest powers was undoubtedly on lines of responsibility. It is 
only necessary to let the informed mind rest meditatively on this 
line of thought concerning responsibility in order to see the utter 
incongruity of such a Judge as Jesus Christ lodging responsi¬ 
bility where there could be no personality to rise at the Last Day 
for His sentence of reward or punishment. 

Thus it ought to be clear that, while the tremendous powers 
enumerated were distinctly bestowed on twelve men, no one of 
them received more than another, and, furthermore, that there 
was no bestowal of any power whatever on the college as a college. 
It is a wonderfully interesting condition. Prophecy, Teaching, 
Ministration and Rule all concentrated and the full powers in 
each sphere equally bestowed on twelve men. None others are 
present. Every power enumerated is given to each. Nothing is 
given to them in collegia but all so personally that they are pointed 
to Judgment Day for their reward for faithful execution. Such 
was the building of the Master after He had. ended the Judaic 
system and separated His kingdom from the world. How does it 
sum up the past, and how does it conform to the systems at va¬ 
rious times regnant, or at least visible, in the world, ecclesiasti¬ 
cal or civil? 

Let us see on the one hand what was precluded, and, secondly, 
what was allowed for under this settlement, and then we can tell 
better what was accomplished. 

Preclusions. Since the power involved every function of 
Ministration, Teaching, Preaching and Rule and was given to 
twelve equally it is clear that the old autocracy of Egypt, Baby¬ 
lon and Persia was set aside; and just as fully the Roman Im- 
perator. The monarchical principles inferred from the use of the 
word ‘^kingdom” were certainly not to extend that far. Even if 
there were any powers above theirs to bestow, the Twelve could 
not give more than they possessed, and to strip themselves by the 
rest taking a lower plane while one of their number retained in 
fullness the powers designated, would have been a violation of 
Christ's settlement just accomplished. They must retain their 
Rule and that left no place for any one over them. 

Since the College of the Apostles did not exist as a body with 


132 


Analytics of Church Government 


designated powers, but could only come into being by virtue of 
the powers each Apostle contributed, the ideas of the Roman Sen¬ 
ate, the Essenic Council of One Hundred, the Jewish Sanhedrim 
in its day of exaltation, and all similar ideas of government by 
a body possessed of powers all its own, is completely negatived. 

Since their powers had come to them before there was any 
such thing as a membership organized, the idea of Rule electively 
bestowed is impossible; and thus there had been no adoption of 
the Guild system, or the old tribal occasional custom—no accept¬ 
ance of the membership as the source of authority. 

Allowances. Since each Apostle had received appointment 
to a kingdom, the monarchial principle must be able to find some 
sphere for its action. There could not be one ruler for the whole, 
for twelve men were given it, but provided the others were given 
their rights a way might be found for the exercise of kingly rule 
by each one. That most excellent feature of kingly rule—single 
responsibility could certainly find place. Autocracy, Imperial¬ 
ism, Absolutism could be barred without the destruction of 
Thrones and Principalities. 

Since, even though no body was called into existence and en¬ 
dowed with power, yet the Apostles were accustomed to work to¬ 
gether, and therefore nothing would be more natural than united 
action as far as circumstances should allow ; and since no word 
of the Master would stand in the way of this, it seems plain that 
conciliar action was deemed fully admissible, and was provided 
for even though not enjoined. 

Since only the Apostles were given authority, and would be 
the only source from which it could flow, no harm could be done 
the appointive principle by any arrangements as to the selective. 
Thus no door was closed against elections within their sphere. 
Certainly the right of the Apostles to appoint would not be in 
any way abridged by the adoption of the elective method of find¬ 
ing the suitable men. They might not shut themselves up to it, 
but they might use it without hurt to any principles of appoint¬ 
ment. Unless it were in fact an inherent right, the appointing 
power could never come to the people, or any but themselves, un¬ 
less given. Up to the Master’s ascension it had not been given. 
It certainly was not inherent, since it is the preeminent sign of 


The Master’s Own Acts 


133 


sovereignty. So, with the appointing power vesting in the 
Apostles, no preclusion of the elective methods was made. 

Thus, then, in connection with the past and present prin¬ 
ciples and forms of government up to His day did our Lord deal. 
He shut off absolutism, but left the door open to kingly rule. 
He shut out the irresponsible rule of a body of men, but admitted 
the conciliar principle. He made the appointment System secure 
without injury to the elective. He judged every system and found 
its strength and weakness. They had grown up because they satis¬ 
fied needs. They were failing because they lacked balance. The 
people for practical knowledge, the many for wisdom, the single 
ruler for responsibility. He opened the way for all and He com¬ 
pletely prevented each of the three from having power to cast 
down the others. Perhaps it ought to be pointed out at once, be¬ 
fore the prejudices against kingly rule in the minds of so many 
rise against the conclusions in that direction, that the words of 
the Master teaching the nature of His kingdom must be ever pres¬ 
ent. “The kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them but 
ye shall not be so.” Concentration of function, dignity, respon¬ 
sibility, swiftness, facility, etc., commend wonderfully the kingly 
office, and if it be stripped of the rights of inheritance, pomp, 
lordship and autocracy, and held by many equally, who are obliged 
to find some accommodation of sphere, etc., we can really find no 
parallel for judgment among the earthly exhibitions of kings. 
Our prejudices are against the earthly type which these of Christ’s 
appointment should in no wise resemble. The prophet who must 
teach and minister as His employment and work may have ruling 
powers both in Church government and the care of souls, but he 
can hardly resemble the potentates of earth. What is a fact 
though, undoubtedly is, that, in the sphere of his rule, his au¬ 
thority comes and issues along lines of the kingly type and not 
the autocratic, synodical or popular. The prophet—priest— 
teacher—king in a sphere like Christ’s kingdom can only by per¬ 
version of every lineament of the original become the thing of 
our prejudice; and the safe-guard against extravagant prelacy is 
not the synod or the people, but the assertion of the manifold 
work and the nature of Christ’s kingdom. Indeed the term Shep¬ 
herd best expresses the whole office on all sides of authority, 
and work, and life. Which leads ns to the thought of the ancient 


134 Analytics of Church Government 

choice of the word episcopos for a shepherd of human beings. 
However, say what anyone will, the flow of authority in the Min¬ 
istry that Christ chose is along kingly lines—swift, facile, con¬ 
centrated, dignified and responsible. Elections, councils, consti¬ 
tutions can not change this utterly. They were doubtless all con¬ 
templated as inevitable growths under the exigencies of life in the 
world, but the nature of the current is that of kingly authority, 
not popular or synodical or autocratic. 

There remains another point to see in its bearings, and it is 
this. There were twelve men to whom the kingdom w r as ap¬ 
pointed. This precise number could hardly have been chosen for 
reasons from the side of governmental requirements. We can not 
settle on any direct raison d'etre, but it had reference to appro¬ 
priateness not necessity, evidently. But now there being twelve, 
we have all these men endowed equally with fullest authority in 
the spheres of rule, ministration, prophecy and teaching. How 
were they to manage between them the question of rule ? Certainly 
none of them could abrogate his functions even by surrender, for 
they came as duties as well as privileges. To have elevated one 
of their number over them would have been an act reaching to 
that Judgment Day when they looked to sit upon twelve thrones 
judging the twelve tribes. This much is to be drawn out of the 
texts, but beyond it we can evolve little or nothing. The Lord did 
not say how they were to adjust the exercise of their office. Ap¬ 
parently He left them to find a way. Geographical and race dis¬ 
tinctions abounded in a world all too large for twelve men to 
teach, and preach and minister to, and exercise rule over. The 
world and future times would furnish the conditions anyhow. Was 
it necessary to settle the problem from the first? Would not con¬ 
ditions change too greatly? If the principle was settled that each 
was equal in function, and invested with the fullest powers, could 
not these men be left to adjust for themselves their own arrange¬ 
ments. Earthly adjustments, when heavenly principles are 
clearly established, are by no means impossible—often very sim¬ 
ple. There was nothing to prevent these men from taking for 
their sphere of work different races, or different countries, or 
groups of cities (or even a single city). Equality of territory was 
not involved. They were equals in functions. The multiplica¬ 
tion of their number could not change principles, nor could re- 


The Master’s Own Acts 


135 


duetion. It makes no difference, for instance, whether St. James 
died before St. Paul’s apostolate or after it. The increase or de¬ 
ficit from the number twelve does not affect the authority of the 
rest at all, and St. Paul did not succeed to St. James’ work in any 
event. Provided these Apostles kept their own functions and re¬ 
cognized those of each other in their fullness, all sought for was 
accomplished, and the circumstances allowed for various ways of 
accomplishing this. At one time all are in Jerusalem. At an¬ 
other St. Paul goes to the Gentiles and St. Peter to the Jews. 
St. James the Just seems localized at Jerusalem. In short, ad¬ 
justments must needs flow from earthly conditions as they should 
arise. The thing to be adjusted was the thing settled in the 
grant. 

The sum total of the Master’s own acts can now he very 
plainly stated. 

He called into being not a central seat of authority but a 
plurality of equal centres, movable, adjustable, personal, resporn 
sible. 

He precluded no principle of the governmental forms that 
had risen to usefulness among men from some manifestation, but 
He so ordered His own form that each of these principles could 
find play, according to needs and conditions, without power to 
eradicate or strangle the others. 

He concentrated every conceivable power of religious office, 
and bestowed them “in lump sum” on each of His appointees to 
office, giving all to each and none to any others. 

By these measures He both made occasion for battle, and 
armed His Church for that battle; and the wisdom of His plan is 
to be judged along just those lines, for, after all, governments are 
instituted of God for instruments of His battle. And none are 
so especially for that purpose as that of His Church. 

This uncrushable, most adaptable, all powerful concentration 
of religious energies stands, as it came from the hands of the Lord 
Jesus, the master creation of that divine mind—and it was indeed 
a creation through the processes of evolution. The gates of Hell 
can not prevail against it, not only because of Divine guarding, 
but because it was in its very founding made so admirable in its 
correspondence to all its possible environments that it has been 
and will be proven equal to every stress. Any other form would 


136 


Analytics of Church Government 


have been an exaltation of some form already existing. This was to 
be a new creation, and it was. No such combination of principles 
had ever been dreamed of on earth. It could, amoeba like, reach 
out a suddenly formed arm of monarchical, conciliar, or popular 
power just as occasion should demand; and History actually shows 
the Church, in its dealing with heresy, secular tyranny and in¬ 
ternal usurpations using each and all these adaptions of internal 
possibilities to accomplish its ends. A veritable fighting machine 
is the Church of the Living God, and this is due to the fact that 
Christ did not bestow His grants of power on a man, or a council, 
or the mass, but called the Twelve around Him and said, “I ap¬ 
point unto you a kingdom as my Father appointed unto Me,” 
making it possible for them to meet all conditions in the appro¬ 
priate way. 


u 


CHAPTER II 

Hpoetoltcal Bets 

When the wonderful organizer left the scene of His labor, 
the eleven men now living to whom all this power and responsi¬ 
bility had come, must have been utterly bewildered. It may be 
that they had been directed what to do, for the Lord had talked 
with them during the forty days about His kingdom, but nothing 
with the Master was cut and dried. Principles He gave in plenty 
always, but it was the application of these to ever changing con¬ 
ditions that He seems always to have made the duty of those con¬ 
cerned. We have no record of directions, and the Apostles seem 
all along to have felt their way as men fully aware of principles 
to be applied, but as yet uninformed as to conditions continually 
springing up. There was to be given them moreover a special Guide 
in the form of the Holy Spirit, whose very mode of work would 
be the bringing to mind principles, and the giving of vision as to 
conditions. The Eleven found themselves both the officers and 
members—the only officers and possibly the only members, under 
strict construction. But there were about one hundred and twenty 
followers present in the city (probably more in Galilee and the 
country about Jerusalem), whose membership there can be no 
great reason to question. Probably the only test at this stage that 
could practically be applied was the fellowship of the Apostles. 
In old days they had baptized large numbers—many more than 
were now with them. They had not yet begun to baptize in the 
new sense of that rite. We may even regard the whole status of 
the Church at this stage as unformed, and even their office as in 
need of complete bestowal. They and the “women and His breth¬ 
ren ” specifically, but certainly also some others whom they address 
as “men and brethren ” seem to have formed, as was in their power 
to do something very like a synagogue, but possibly it was more 
informal than that, something attaining a similar purpose but not 
regularly organized. They prayed together, and on one of these 
days St. Peter brought forward the need of filling the place of 
Judas. 


138 


Analytics of Church Government 


There seems little or nothing to comment upon in our con¬ 
nection as regards the account in the Book of Acts of their doings 
in general during these few days, except that we may note that 
James, son of Alphaeus, and Judas, brother of James, are men¬ 
tioned as separate from His brethren—“These (eleven) continued, 
etc., with the women and Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and with 
His brethren;” which mention may help us to say which James it 
was that was head of the Church at Jerusalem afterwards, in St. 
Paul’s day. But this selection of an Apostle in Judas’ place 
might be expected to let in much light upon Apostolical under¬ 
standing of their powers and the proper modes of procedure. The 
language is very singular. St. Peter says that Judas was num¬ 
bered with us and had “obtained by lot” ( elachen ) part of this 
diakonias. St. Luke’s account leads us to think, as do other pas¬ 
sages also, that our Lord selected the twelve, but this passage, also 
by St. Luke, about the lot being cast for Matthias speaks as though 
Judas also had originally been chosen by lot (at least the word 
elachen has this force, and with ton Icleron the idea seems stressed) ^ 
thus supplying a precedent. Possibly exegesis can be pushed too 
far but it is singular to say the least that the verb lagchano is the 
word used concerning Judas. Let us note also the word diakonias 
as here used meaning ministration. When stress is laid upon the 
office of apostle as witness and herald this use of an word suggesting 
ministration is not to be ignored, for it helps to a full rounding of 
our view of an apostle’s work. Returning to St. Peter’s address, 
let us next note that while it is translated “must one be or¬ 
dained” the Greek merely uses the word genesthai . In a land 
where Priests, Scribes, Rulers of Synagogues, and every ministrant 
about Holy things were “ordained’ ’ to their office it may be useless 
to call up the matter, but, nevertheless, the words do not specifically 
go as far as “ordination. ” Still, when our Lord chose the Twelve, 
St. Mark says, “He made twelve”— epoiese?i , so that evidently 
the Greek language had not settled to any set phrase for the usual 
Hebrew form—the laying on of hands in blessing as the ceremony 
of setting apart to sacred work. Finally, when it is said of Mat¬ 
thias, “And he was numbered with the eleven Apostles,” the 
Greek says “he was voted down with.” Evidently the whole idea 
in St. Luke’s mind, as he writes of St. Peter’s address, is the 
proper selection of a man, and not any matter at all of the method 


Apostolical Acts 


139 


by which the person selected was inducted into the office; and 
throughout, we see in the terms used about Judas and Matthias, 
and the incident of the ballot between two, that voting, lot, elec¬ 
tion was resorted to by the Apostles in the very highest matter 
that could at this time come before them. 

At the very threshold, then, we see the people of the infant 
Church appealed to—by those whose powers as we have noted 
leached beyond anything yet seen on the earth (embracing every 
realm of religious life)—and, guided by certain decisions of Auth¬ 
ority, balloting, and selecting a holder of the transcendant office of 
Apostle. It would not do to ignore those decisions of Author¬ 
ity. The right to make them implies that the Apostles volun¬ 
tarily came out from the ramparts of power and recognized a 
something in the people that ought to have been recognized. It 
was not that they had no power to do the whole, but that there 
was this other claim to a share of power. Their office lacked noth¬ 
ing for the enablement of the whole business to be begun, con¬ 
tinued and completed by themselves. What they saw was that 
there was power for something existing elsewhere, and that they 
could wisely recognize it. It was no small power by any means 
as we shall see. 

Could we take the view that they here bestowed power on 
the laity? Or, was it in fact a recognition of what was there al¬ 
ready? Unquestionably there was a power already there that 
without usurping anything could reach as far as the performance 
of the functions here mentioned. Of course if the Apostles had 
sole power they could delegate parts of it, and thus bestow on the 
laity certain functions, just as afterwards they bestowed on dea¬ 
cons, etc., part of their functions; but if the people already pos¬ 
sessed the powers we could hardly call it a bestowal. In fact, 
they did possess the powers, and so it was a recognition and not a 
bestowal. 

What were the powers and how derived? 

The Apostles appealed to the people. The people balloted. 
Matthias was “voted down with the eleven apostles” (sunkatepse 
phisthe), causing his being numbered with them. It is clearly 
then a recognition of the powers of Consent, and an effort to se¬ 
cure that consent beforehand. Furthermore, it is a submission 
of persons to the judgment of the people, and if persons then, why 


140 


Analytics of Church Government 


not measures? If even the Apostle can be chosen what measure 
is beyond this power of Consent? If the Eleven had been seek¬ 
ing to grasp power this would have been a fatal blunder, for 
after the power of Consent in such an instance is allowed, the 
precedent would stand for all instances—in that sphere of course. 
In this connection let us reflect that the words, “Ye take too much 
upon you, ye sons of Levy,” were said by Moses not because they 
claimed powers of Consent, but powers of Office. It was Moses 
himself who called Assemblies and created Councils of Princes 
or Elders, for all that he held Authority to be so sacred. But 
to cut the matter short, once the principle of Selection is allowed 
Consent has already been exalted. 

The derivation is from Nature. Our Lord did not bestow 
power on the people, because they already had all that was neces¬ 
sary to His system. He bestowed power on the officers who could 
not otherwise obtain His authority. What they needed was 
His authority, not just plain simple authority. Plenty of that 
might come from world sources, but His authority is quite a 
different matter. A people might say “Come and rule over us,” 
and the man so constituted Ipuler would be f jin possession of 
large authority, but they could then unmake as well as make. 
What the Master sought was authority above such changes. There¬ 
fore He carefully made distinct bestowal of powers on the Twelve, 
and, just as distinctly none on the people. He recognized it, 
however, by leaving wide the door for Councils and Elections, 
etc. The powers He bestowed in no wise trenched on natural 
powers. He deprived others of nothing in order that He might 
give to His Apostles. He simply left the whole field of natural 
powers as He found it. The Arab tribes had recognized the 
powers of the tribe as well as those of the chief. Moses had recog¬ 
nized the people as well as the Priesthood and Judgship. So also 
Christ. The power of Consent is the power of self defense, 
the power of numbers, the power of humanity. It is not of na¬ 
ture for the people to be the source of Authority. If it is, then 
it must be said frankly that our Lord went directly contrary to 
that principle. As was said in a former chapter, the right of 
self government (a thing only possible among very enlightened 
peoples) is utterly distinct from the principle of the Consent of 
the governed. Our Lord appointed rulers, but left untouched the 


/ 


Apostolical Acts 141 

powers of Consent, and here in the acts of the Apostles we have 
those powers recognized by the authorities He appointed. 

We find, then, that before the day of Pentecost had come, all 
things were ready, Authority was seated above all chance of being 
cast down, and that authority had in the plainest way recognized 
Consent. From that day to this, warfare between the two has 
been constant and violent, but neither has been dethroned, and 
through their constant attrition, great truths have been rubbed 
out as the wheat for the needy world. Hot all authority has been 
as prudent as the Apostles were. Sometimes it has gone ahead 
and demanded the people to follow; which procedure is often 
against the pride or conscience of that powerful body. Some¬ 
times, on the other hand, the people have been too stupid or too 
distrustful to accede to the leadership of Authority. So must 
it ever be. By warfare is the peace of this world sought for and 
obtained, and there is a God above who ever supplieth Grace to 
Authority and Faith to Consent. 

In truth the people need no more than this one power, and 
since the Apostles sanctioned it, and the Holy Ghost set His seal 
upon the action, it seems irrevocable ; but there can not be de¬ 
tected in all the subsequent acts of that glorious band of men 
any effort either to extend or diminish this power of the people. 
If, instead of allowing the vast range of discussion. Scholars 
could just fight this one battle, so much would be gained. Where¬ 
in, it is here asked, has the Bible given an instance where the 
power of Consent has been abridged or increased by any of the 
Apostles ? 

In order to lay proper emphasis on the point, let it be said 
most emphatically that the Master’s plan was to institute Author¬ 
ity and leave Consent with all its natural powers. He made 
Authority immensely strong, but Consent was immensely strong 
already. He left the earth with Authority fully in evidence and 
Consent apparently ignored. But it was not so in fact. Consent 
needed only to have its field left open, and that He was careful 
to do. How, then, in the very first step taken by the very Author¬ 
ity He had so endowed, and that too, in the very vital matter of 
filling the vacancy in the place of Authority itself, this same all 
powerful Authority recognizes the place and power of Consent 
too plainly for any subsequent question. Thus it is Authority 


142 Analytics of Church Government 

that emphasizes Consent. This is better than that the Master 
should have formally drawn the distinction. The whole condition 
of things is sealed as complete and right by the Holy Spirit. 

Furthermore, the powers of consent remain the same all 
through the life of these Apostles. Every one recalls the words 
of the Apostles when the Seven are chosen—“Look ye out among 
you seven men, etc., whom we may appoint over this business.” 
Again, when in the Church of Antioch question arose over Mosaic 
ordinances, which led to a Council at Jerusalem, the language 
used concerning that council seems very strong along lines of 
Authority until the conclusion of the deliberations is reached, 
which is so stated in the words—“Then pleased it the Apostles 
and Elders, with the whole Church, 55 as to leave no doubt that 
the approval of all was sought and obtained. It matters not 
whether in or out of the Council, the Consent of the whole Church 
was secured. The passage may be of very little help in estab¬ 
lishing the precise position of the “brethren 55 in the council (and 
the possible range is large), but even though not in it at all yet 
their agreement is somehow > secured. That councils had yet 
passed into their legal stage is more than doubtful, but in this 
very practical beginning, why could not Consent have gathered 
with Authority for convenience sake even if nothing more? When 
Councils became law-making bodies instead of judicial settlers 
of vexed questions, the power status of the powers of Consent 
could become a large question, but this Council is manifestly 
a deliberative gathering of all available interests for judgment of 
a pressing matter. In such gatherings how can the admission of 
the side of Consent do harm ? Even typical legal councils can find 
a place for Consent without Consent rising out of its proper func¬ 
tion. However, here in this case, the only thing made clear as 
to the status of “the whole Church” was that they were asked to 
act with the Apostles and Elders. They certainly did that, and 
it stands as a conspicuous example of the Apostles 5 regard for 
a power that stood over against their own. 

It can not be proved, but it is assuredly granted by all, that 
when St Paul “ordained for them Elders in every city, 55 he fol¬ 
lowed the line of the Apostles, and ordained those selected by 
the people according to certain precautions of his own establish¬ 
ment. 


Apostolical Acts 


143 


For the rest it may be said, that we must appeal to the tone 
and spirit of the Epistles rather than to any definite events or 
practices to show how the relations between Authority and Con¬ 
sent were regarded. Such things may only enable one to judge 
for himself, but certainly there is no arrogance even on the pari 
of St. Paul, who could “come with a rod,” nor is there any shar¬ 
ing of his authority with any one. The whole impression is that 
of Authority separate and above the mass, and yet ever seeking to 
have the mass act with it. 

It is well known that many minds have looked to find in 
the specific form of Church Government the essential of it, but 
truly there is more in the fact that the powers of Authority and 
Consent are so clearly set opposite each other, and so clearly 
hedged off from each other’s spheres than in anything else. It is 
true that our Lord made careful choice of a form for Authority, 
but the wisdom of that comes after the great line of demarka- 
tion He made around Authority, and the care He showed to 
leave untouched those natural powers of Consent that will not 
suffer themselves to be entrenched upon. After He had ended 
the Jewish Polity, and settled the lines between His Kingdom and 
those of the world, this exaltation of Authority to every function 
of service and control, while recognizing all the fundamental 
power of the people, marks His genius as the towering one of all 
the ages in the sphere of government as well as so much else. And 
it seems to stand out very plainly that the means by which He 
accomplished it was to make the sphere of Authority so com¬ 
pletely full that it included every particle there could be of that 
gift of God. To the hounds of the world and the end of time, 
every nation and every creature, for retaining and remitting sins, 
binding and loosing whatsoever fell in the limits of the Kingdom, 
the Authority He instituted was to exercise every power of re¬ 
ligious ministry. His Spirit-guided Apostles took up the won¬ 
derful commission, and while fully illustrating all the great pow¬ 
ers given them, left the record of their acts so simple a seeming 
story that it reads like an every day record of easily lived lives 
and very naturally borne burdens. 

We pass on to consider some other matters involved—the 
matters of their own and, also, the lower orders. 


144 


Analytics of Church Government 


Twelve men could not suffice for the work. Conditions soon 
poured their necessities upon them. Could they enlarge their 
number? Must every new worker be given full share with them 
in every respect? Was the possession of their own full power to 
end with them? This form of the problem would not arise at 
first at any rate. The problem would first be, could they give 
part of their authority to others while exclusively retaining the 
rest, for the present at least? We are not told when Elders were 
first appointed, but so far as the narrative is concerned it could 
well have been before the account of the “deaconship of tables” 
is given in the record, which was some five years after Pentecost. 
Whether before or after that event, they were appointed, and 
we also read of an order below them called Deacons. We will 
not stop here to lose ourselves in a discussion of the appoint¬ 
ment of the “Seven,” it is enough that ultimately we find Eld¬ 
ers and Deacons, the limits of whose functions can only be sur¬ 
mised from the narrative, but who plainly did not share the full 
powers of the Apostles. There may have been other distinctions 
as well, along lines of prophecy, rule, evangelical work, etc. Cer¬ 
tainly the Apostles bestowed some of their powers on others 
without giving other powers generally esteemed the highest. This 
was only following the universal custom of mankind and regu¬ 
lar trend of things. As we have seen, Ministration always be¬ 
came divided into the special, the regular, and the assisting. 
These divisions came about from the nature of things, not any 
formal plan. Our Lord had apparently not even considered them. 
He had given Authority. That gift must be from Heaven. Its 
divisions for its work could be of earth. The Apostles would have 
power to make them, and precedent as well as conditions to guide 
them. There have always been three orders of ministrants in 
the world, and this is evident not only to those “reading Holy 
Scriptures and Ancient Authors,” but must be evident to all 
who consider the nature of the case. Where it might be sup¬ 
posed there were less it would be the highest that would be omitted, 
and then a council put in its place lest the units of the great 
body should become too numerous for any action in common in¬ 
volving strain. 

While thus there is a natural division into three orders, 


Apostolical Acts 


145 


the special, the regular and the assisting, there can be also others 
along different lines. Peculiar fitness for certain lines of work, 
because of gifts, might lead to the divisions of prophets, teachers, 
helps, governments, etc., hut when it came to the equipment of 
these with the authority needed for the work, doubtless it be¬ 
came very hard to deny to each of them, especially the Evange¬ 
lists, the same amount given to a regular Pastor or Ministrant 
to a congregation. Little by little, possibly, the cleavage along 
the line of the degree of Authority overcame that along the line 
of special work. An Apostle could be an Evangelist or a Prophet; 
so too, could an Elder, and so, perhaps also, a Deacon (Philip 
was one of the Seven, and is called, as we know, Philip the 
Evangelist). And so matters settled into orders—Orders of 
Authority and not classes of works. All of which shows us that 
it was not that our Lord devised a system in its entirety, but a 
force of conditions that molded His gift into natural and oft 
repeated shapes. Had all the details of Church offices been new, 
probably the Scriptures might have been fuller in their account, 
but because they were so natural and regular, their life was 
assured. 

But sooner or later the Apostles would have the other ques¬ 
tion to face—that of the continuance of their own order. Even 
before that, the question of its enlargement might come. 

The remark above, about the naturalness and regularity of 
the threefold division ensuring life, can in this instance also ac¬ 
count for the vagueness of Scripture. If one has followed the 
efforts of the last chapters, he will hardly dream of such a thing 
as the passing away of the first order, but it is our work to go 
into the question analytically and see it to the end. 

St. James died in 44; St. Paul was converted as far back 
as 37, and began his first journey in 45. Certainly by the time 
of St. James’ death the problem was faced. God had thrust 
St. Paul forward and removed St. James, and by one or the 
other process forced the Apostles to face the issue of doing some¬ 
thing about their own order. When St. Paul became an Apostle 
we don’t know. If we should say it was when he began his 
first journey then we would be confronted with the claims of 
St. Barnabas also. If the laying on of hands at Antioch was for 


146 


Analytics of Church Government 


the one the beginning of Apostleship what was it for the other? 
Here was the same ceremony, the same work, the same degree 
of Authority, both when together, and when St. Barnabas went 
to C} r prus, taking St. Mark with him. If, on the other hand, it 
was before that, then it w T as before St. James’ death. Either 
then St. Paul and St. Barnabas raised the number to thirteen, 
or St. Paul made that number while St. James yet lived. This 
increase to thirteen happened beyond all questioning, and it 
means something. 

When St. James died the whole face of the work had changed. 
Jerusalem had been occupied, and the work had reached to An¬ 
tioch and Tarsus as well as Samaria. If then there was no reason 
for the number to remain twelve, here w r as a condition that called 
for an increase. God had called St. Paul. The Holy Spirit said sep¬ 
arate Paul and Barnabas. Conditions and Providences both rushed 
upon the Disciples and they woke up, as it were, to find thirteen 
men of their own rank. And why should there be only twelve ? No 
new territorial room would have to be made with correspond¬ 
ing diminishment of that of those already holding office. Their 
office could be territorial but could also be racial beyond all 
question. It was in fact an office marked by degree of authority 
independently of all else. Besides, this much was plain—either 
their office must die when the last of the Twelve should die, or 
it must be extended. Had not God extended it? The concep¬ 
tion of St. Barnabas as a deputy of St. Paul won’t stand a mo¬ 
ment, and the idea of his independent work in Cyprus being 
without the powers he had been accustomed to, is violative of 
all consonance. But to him is applied the very name Apostle. 
And, even if St. Barnabas was possessed of only a part of their 
powers, here was St. Paul not a whit behind the very chieftest 
of them. 

If it should die what then? Why the entire plan of Christ 
would be altered. Authority must find another seat. This could 
only be a Council or councils, liable to the preventions of world 
powers, broken into by intervals, without eyes, without person¬ 
ality, without adequate executive and without responsibility. And 
the Master had not chosen the conciliar form, although U 
had long been tested as a form of government, but had chosen 


Apostolical Acts 


147 


the plan of units, each endowed with equal and highest power3. 
Or, it could be a single man—a theory never broached. (The Papal 
theory is of course—that Christ originally appointed one as head, 
and not that one became head as heir to what was first given to 
twelve). Or, again, the seat could be the vast number of units 
engaged in the local work, who had hitherto had a partial author¬ 
ity only. Or, yet again, The whole Church could become the 
repository of a lapsed authority to be by it redistributed—but, 
since the first order had become extinct, distributed along new 
lines. It is to be noted that it could not pass to the laity unless 
the pow r er of the second order did so also. It must be the whole 
Church embracing both remaining ministry and laity. 

If their office should be extended, and their order preserved, 
what would ensue? Why the great balance between high Author¬ 
ity and broad Consent would be maintained—the very essence of 
the Master’s plan. 

It was natural that in a subsequent age, when temporarily 
Authority sought to strangle Consent, that blindness to the bal¬ 
ance of these world forces should come, and issue in counter vio¬ 
lence on the part of Consent against Authority, especially as 
Authority was then appearing in a form of concentration terri¬ 
bly severe. Suffice it to say, that Consent then and there vindi¬ 
cated its power. Giant powers indeed wrestled. Authority was 
humbled, and under the circumstances that was a great gain; but 
what if there were no Authority to humble Consent when in 
popular fury or arrogance it might need its turn at the lesson 
book? 

Thus the question that the Apostles must face would be, a 
change of the Master’s plan, or the continuation of it. 

As to vesting their authority in a Council or councils, the 
Apostles made very little use of councils, so far as the record 
goes. They called but one. It was a possible part of the ma¬ 
chinery, but an extra part, so to speak, not a regular working 
part. They “came together to consider” a question. Physical 
conditions began soon to set limits to such emergency machinery, 
and increased the difficulty as time went on. No Council fell 
heir to their authority. Their recognition of them is most im¬ 
portant, but their place is equally well marked. 


148 


Analytics of Church Government 


And, as to the second order, to the end of the Bible it re¬ 
mained under authority, and not a sign is given that this condi¬ 
tion was ever to change. Their number was too vast and their 
work too contracted to allow them to be the units of the system 
where such vast power existed. They would need oversight them¬ 
selves from the very nature of their work. The Apostles had 
supplied this, and the need of it (As we see in Crete and Ephesus) 
was one of the forces demanding an extension of the apostolic 
staff. 

As we have seen, if the Apostolic order was not extended, and 
if their office passed away, it might be that the Authority that 
they held did not cease to be, but the whole Church became the re¬ 
siduary legatee, so to speak, of all authority, and could redistri¬ 
bute it. But if the Great Organizer had at all settled His King¬ 
dom, why, and indeed when, came this new arranging of its forces, 
and what took the place of the only order that Christ ordained? 
If it was extinct, did councils or did the old second order—that 
of Elders acquire new functions? What we do see as a fact 
is—that the high order of Apostles, the order Christ ordained, 
and vested with so great authority, continues until the last word 
of Revelation is written. The Bible ends before the order ends. 
As a matter of fact, neither the Scriptures nor History tell us 
of any redistribution of authority. Apostolic functions were not 
bestowed by any act of the Church as a whole or part at any 
time or place. It may be a possible theory that the authority 
before exhibited by the Apostles became vested in the whole, but 
no exploitation of it or bestowal of it appears in early history. 
Is it still there, latent? 

We are shut up to the view that the first order became ex¬ 
tinct, and its functions ceased, or that the Apostles extended their 
order, and their functions still live. It is, in fact, a very com¬ 
mon view, that with the Apostles passed away the Apostolic office. 

And, doubtless, it was to the Apostles that the outlook also 
appeared—whether to extend their order, or to let both it and its 
powers fade forever from the earth. While to some men now 
it appears, that only men who were Christ-chosen could possibly 
be trusted with such power, to the Apostles it may have seemed 


Apostolical Acts 


149 


impossible to vest them in councils, or the vast numbers of the 
second order, or in the Church at large. 

The argument for believing that they extended their own 
order may be stated as follows: 

The powers of their order, as given them at the first con¬ 
stituted a rounded whole that they could hardly be suffered to 
cast away, or allow to become extinct in any of its functions. 
Rule, Ministration, Prophecy, Teaching and the Care of souls 
were all bound up in one ministry, and in one office by the Mas¬ 
ter Himself. What function could be allowed to cease ? 
But, if no function could lapse is it that in degree some 
of them became lessened? Now to the end of Scripture, 
as was said, there was a second order that confessedly 
did not attain in degree to that of the first, and since 
nothing was vested in councils, the failure of this order 
to acquire the authority of the first must reveal a distinct loss 
for the whole. It is exactly this loss of its great inheritance in 
entirety that is to be combatted. If there is any theory that holds 
that there was no loss, it would be acceptable, and if there are 
any facts that look in that direction, they would be of greatest 
interest. To sit down calmly to the fact that a part of its glory 
of heritage, and an arc of the great circle that the Master drew 
was lost, is almost impossible. It is a beautiful and wonderful 
whole that is contended for—where each part and its very degree 
seemed necessary to the completeness of entirety; where each 
power was held in supreme degree without limitation, and the 
harmony seemed to depend on this supremacy; where, if one 
power sank below the level at which it was bestowed, vital con¬ 
sequences must follow; where Preaching and Teaching depended 
on the very degree of authority in Rule (To “speak and exhort, 
and rebuke with all authority” was a principle with St. Paul); 
where all the past was summed up; where all the future seemed 
to be commanded by this new artillery seeking the demolition of 
the strongholds of unrighteousness. Why, it is almost inconceiv¬ 
able that this marvel of symmetry became mutilated! Are there, 
then, any facts which might show its continuance? Yes, there 
are. 

First: Scripture ends before the Apostles all die. That is 


150 


Analytics of Church Government 


to say, if the Apostolate passed away, History and not Scripture 
recounts the end. It may be that it can be said that in Scrip¬ 
ture it can be seen diminishing, and no distinct provisions for 
its continuance declared, but that would not preclude the last 
survivors from acting, as would be most natural, when the bridge 
to be crossed was actually reached. St. John himself, is the last. 
However, it is a fact, and it has a bearing, that the Bible does 
not record the end of Christ’s institution—an office superbly com¬ 
plete. To see that end we must look to History. 

Secondly: History contradicts the idea that the order which 
held the powers in highest degree passed. St. Ignatius is only 
some fifty years from St. Barnabas in work at Antioch, even if 
that. History can not be robbed of a voice in such an issue, where 
by the very terms the appeal to her must of necessity be made. 

Thirdly: There is in Scripture a whole set of men, hitherto 
unexamined as to their functions and degree of power, whose 
actions are so singular as to compel attention. No one can help 
being struck by the difference manifested between the powers of 
Timothy or Titus and those of the Elders over whom they were 
appointed. St. Barnabas and Silas and St. Luke as companions 
of St. Paul, St. Mark as companion of St. Barnabas, seem to 
join in the very powers of their chiefs (though in the case of 
St. Barnabas and St. Paul there never is given a sign of either 
being first and the other second). Apollos, too, presents a novel 
case. St. James at Jerusalem stands boldly out as another in¬ 
stance. There are even others who seem to rise above the regu¬ 
lar order of Presbyters, over whom they seem to be placed. Now 
this whole number of men seem to offer a solution of the problem. 
With History demanding an origin for whole lines of men in 
many different churches, who exercised just the functions, in 
kmd and degree, given by our Lord to His Apostles; and with the 
office, as it came from His hands, demanding a permanent reposi¬ 
tory for its functions, the very fact that there is a set of men 
mentioned in Scripture seeming to be the link we seek holds out 
a hope that we can find in them an extension of the Apostolate. 
Certainly until we examine their claims we can not accept the 
extinction of the light that came with so much glory at the first. 
Christ lavished His care on but one office, and it is hard to be- 


Apostolical Acts 


151 


lieve that it died with its first holders. If the principle of mon¬ 
archy be taken out of His system it falls. There is nothing left 
to hold balance with those others which He combined with it in 
His great settlement. 

The Apostolical acts then which we have reviewed are: 

The recognition of Consent. 

The recognition of Council. 

The bestowal of a part of their powers on lower orders. 

The bestowal on a few men of peculiar powers seemingly dif¬ 
ferent from those given the mass of local workers, which powers 
we are next to investigate. 


CHAPTER III 


Discussion of tbe Difference Between 
apostles anb fillers 

Undoubtedly the proper step now is to discuss, in all ful- 
ness, the powers of the Apostles in comparison with the powers 
of the order of regular workers, so as to see just where the differ¬ 
ence between them lies, and then to take up the powers of these 
special men in order to find the proper niche into which they 
best fit. 

As we have seen, the Apostles were given powers to Baptize, 
Teach, Preach, Minister, Care for souls, and Govern in all ful¬ 
ness the Church of Christ. Which of these powers—and to what 
degree as well—were bestowed upon the regular workers under 
them? 

Of course, we can see from Scripture that the Elders were 
to baptize; and also the teaching powers, to be theirs at all, would 
be theirs in fulness. The offices of teaching and preaching are 
ones of parity, and could hardly be given in part. The fulness of 
the Gospel and of Christ’s commands and doctrine were equally 
within the range of the whole body of teachers and preachers. 
Some men may have had greater gifts, which thus caused them 
to labor specially in the word, but we see no division between the 
Apostolic order and that of Elders along the lines of teaching 
and preaching any more than along that of baptizing—apart from 
territorial distinctions, of course. When we come to Ministra¬ 
tion, Care of souls and Rule, there is room for distinctions from 
the nature of things; and it is along these lines that we look for 
the divergence of the degrees of office. Some ministration, 
some care of souls, and some powers of rule must have been 
gh en, and we know were given, to the order of Elders, whose work 
essentially involved these things, but it does not follow that, be¬ 
cause they had some power therefore they had all. For instance, 
there was a rule over Elders to be considered. And, moreover, 
certain powers of Ministration could well be reserved. Also, in 
the Care of souls, the question of final settlement of cases opened 
the way for distinctions. It will, therefore, be along these three 


Difference Between Apostles and Elders 153 

lines that we will look for clear distinctions to be made, in the 
Bible. 

The Elders were undoubtedly given the right to baptize, 
teach, preach, care for souls, conduct public worship, minister the 
word and the memorial of Christ’s death, and exercise control or 
rule over the congregation to some extent (though it is not clear 
how far this was to be, or in conjunction with what other forces). 

The Apostles were unquestionably in possession of—appoint¬ 
ment of officers, rule over Elders, the hearing of appeals, the 
care of many churches and even groups of churches, and seem 
to have retained the exclusive right to the laying on of hands for 
that Gift of the Holy Ghost which was the wonderful sign and 
mark of this the world’s new institution. All of these, of course, 
in addition to all the powers to which they admitted the order of 
Elders. 

It is clearly the old customary line between the Special and 
the General, between functions of occasional demand and those 
of continual necessity, with the usual provision for the rule over 
the local rulers. But if it is indeed a fact that they reserved to 
their own order the giving of the Holy Ghost—both for ordina¬ 
tion and the purpose which we see illustrated at Samaria and 
Ephesus, whatever that be, then we have a most remarkable dif¬ 
ference indeed; which is so exclusively Christian, so essentially 
peculiar to the Church of Christ as to be compulsory of study. 

But let us take in order the differences in each division and 
satisfy our minds about their existence and extent. We have the 
spheres of Ministration, Eule and the Care of souls. Let us begin 
with the last and discuss the problem. 

There are quite a number of remarkable passages in the 
Scriptures where the Apostles, or some one of them, rise to the 
very highest degree of authority that seems possible in the matter 
of dealing with souls. The first is that of Ananias and Saphira; 
then that of Simon Magus; the case of Elymas the sorcerer; 
Hymenaeus and Alexander; lastly, the instance of the incestuous 
man in the Corinthian Church. The striking thing about them 
is the instantaneous action of the Apostle concerned. There 
seems such an assurance of confidence, such an undoubted sense 
of power and right. There was no doubt about retaining and re- 


154 Analytics of Church Government 

mitting sins here. The thunderbolt of Heaven seemed to fall 
in each case. “When ye are gathered together, and my spirit, 
with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,” says St. Paul, and ho 
prefaces it thus—“I have judged already as though I were pres¬ 
ent/ ’ to “deliver such an one to Satan.” How this comports with 
the other four cases! The extremity of power in all these cases 
seems amply to cover all power up to that high point. 

Now did any authority of the elders reach as high? Of 
course the territorial question is left out and only the matter of 
degree considered. The territorial difference, however, has its 
own importance also. It is needless to say, there is no instance 
given. We see a certain sharing in the Apostles’ action on the 
part of the Corinthian Church, and think a legitimate conclusion 
would be, that there was no appeal from St. Paul, while there 
might well have been from them. 

We may consider the council at Jerusalem also called to 
consider a case under the head of the care of souls; and a matter 
whieh might have been settled by St. Barnabas and St. Paul (at 
Antioch this might have been the order of the names) was re¬ 
ferred to the “Apostles and Elders” at Jerusalem, because the 
ones who came to raise the question claimed to come from the 
Apostles. The judicial Council illustrates how the Elders pos¬ 
sessed a voice in matters of such Character; nevertheless the 
Apostles lose nothing of place or authority in the account of 
that council. It is very much to be doubted whether Elders of 
the Jerusalem Church could have had any voice at all in the affairs 
of Antioch and elsewhere outside of Jerusalem except as counsel¬ 
lors of the Apostles, whose jurisdiction clearly reached the whole 
Church. The case was common to all, and the Apostles’ clear 
jurisdiction made a satisfaction of conditions that would meet all 
objectors. 

But if St. Paul went up to get a Council to determine this 
particular case, in the matter of the care of souls, he did not 
always take such a course by any means. In much the same line, 
he met much the same men in his own way, and by his own 
authority. The Judaizers dogged his steps, but the whole Church 
became indebted to him for settling the whole range of questions 


Difference Between Apostles and Elders 155 


in the realm of the Law, not by appeal back to this or any other 
Council, but by his authority as Apostle. 

Even the limited data at our command makes it easy to see 
the fact that great pre-eminence belonged to the Apostolic order 
in the whole region of the Care of souls, but it does not allow us 
to set off each sphere with the exactness we would like. The 
vagueness is not however about the Apostolic office, but is as to 
the precise share falling to the second order. The participation 
in the council allows the assertion of more lee-way than would 
otherwise be possible, even though it should really be mere asser¬ 
tion. 

In the matter of Rule we have a plain straight course. Ter¬ 
ritorially, and in degree, the rule of the Apostles was much larger. 
Their rule included that over the Elders. They appointed them; 
they could remove them; they assigned them their work and 
stations. Doubtless they more and more followed regulations 
agreed to by all, so that all would be done acceptably and in 
order, but the order of the Eldership was of their appointment 
and sustenance. Furthermore, the people under the Elders were 
under them also. They were chief pastors of all orders. 

It is to be noted that there was no Council held over ques¬ 
tions of Rule, or for the purposes of control. The matter that 
engrossed the only Council mentioned was a matter of conduct, of 
custom, of ceremonial. As Rulers the Apostles simply went about 
setting things in order. They had settled how it was to be done, 
and their work was to order all things either as they had agreed, 
or the occasion that was new in their own judgment demanded. 
Of a Council in control of affairs we have no instance at all. 
“Stewards, not Boards/’ is Biblical custom, if not Biblical law. 

If any should argue that because the Apostles and Elders 
“came together to consider” the custom of Circumcision, that con¬ 
ciliar authority is thus biblically established over all departments, 
then the abstention of the Council from other things can well be 
argued in proof of the wisdom of men in biblical times. Councils 
about any matters were not precluded, but the Apostles ruled in 
a personal way. Doubtless had a Council been held on matters 
of rule, it would have been as representative as was the one called 
on the other line. If they are to be held, by all manner of means, 


156 


Analytics of Church Government 


they ought to be representative, so as to gain counsel, i. e., be con¬ 
ciliar, but our consideration of rule is not beclouded by any such 
council, for the Apostles ruled without them, so far as a line of 
record exists. Even in the matter of local rule, we read of no 
Councils. A plurality of Elders, and a single congregation has 
been supposed to warrant the assumption of their being in all 
local Churches a definite council of Elders, but that is an infer¬ 
ence of only some minds. However, this is a very proper place 
for the consideration of the point, and we will go into it. 

It is argued by some, we say, that since we read of Elders 
(plural) being appointed in every Church, that, therefore, the 
way those several Elders governed that one Church was by a 
conciliar form of government. Ho evidence of Scripture is sub¬ 
mitted (but from History, St. Jerome) for the Scriptures are 
silent, but the supposition is inferred. It is, however, just at 
this point that others come in to say, the facts are that the 
membership of the Church entered in too, and instead of there 
being a Council of Elders, there was a congregational gathering 
and each Church governed itself; and for this position the instance 
of the Corinthian Church, and the Council at Jerusalem are 
given. 

But again, there is yet another position. When St. Paul calls 
the Elders of Ephesus to him, he says, “Take heed therefore unto 
yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath 
made you overseers/ ’ and this text brings out so clearly the ele¬ 
ment of personal responsibility over a flock, that it is not thought 
that either meeting in Council or in congregational assembly 
could be in such form as to change this. It is recalled that the 
Apostles were twelve, and the Church one, and yet that their gov¬ 
ernment was personal (witness St. Paul) and while they made 
use of both Council and Congregation, yet that fact did not 
harm their personal authority. So, too, there is no reason to 
preclude the Elders from utilizing either Counciliar or Congre¬ 
gational forms. If the twelve could do it, why could not they? 
But that they called into being a Council like the Roman Senate, 
—turned their personal responsibility over to an It, is another 
matter. The distinction must be kept in mind. The Jewish 
presbytery it is claimed was a type; but the Jewish presbytery 


/ 


Difference Between Apostles and Elders 157 

governed as an It. Authority lodged in the Council. It must 
decree and seek an executive for its decrees, and it avoided indi¬ 
vidual responsibility. The Ephesian Elders on the other hand 
were to “take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which 
the Holy Ghost (not a Council), hath made you overseers,” so 
that any form of conciliar or Congregational action which safe¬ 
guarded that principle, could well be used as both possible and 
natural, but not the other, for the very reason that it made the 
Elders executive of a Council, rather than overseers, by the ap¬ 
pointment of the Holy Ghost, who must “take heed to themselves 
and to all the flock/ ’ 

Thus the matter stands, that it is true that there would be 
several Elders in each place where apparently there was only one 
Church, but that such a condition does not warrant the passing of 
personal authority into conciliar, nor does it preclude the Congre¬ 
gation from a share. That Congregational authority ever rose to 
equality with that of the Elders is however another matter. The 
point is, that granting there to be many elders and only one 
Church, the influence of a transcendent Council is left—in the 
air. 

In this connection, we must remember the two distinct heads 
—Rule and the Care of souls. Those who advocate Councils for 
rule, must consider also the Care of Souls. There is a shrinking 
inherent and great, from the judgment of the individual soul, by 
the many. It is true that it was in the sphere of Care of Souls 
rather than Rule, that the Council of Jerusalem was held, but it 
was a matter of public policy and not the personal affair of one 
lone poor soul. The tyranny of a Board comes from the hardness 
of a Board as well as its power. How if the sight of several Eld¬ 
ers to one Church should drive us to consider a Council taking 
the place of personal authority in Rule, does it also take it in the 
Care of souls? There being no account of any local Council, 
we are driven to inference. But such an inference carries us 
back to where our Lord, knowing all about the horror of the Jew¬ 
ish Sanhedrim, as well as the Synagogues and Essenic Council, 
gave to no Council, but to twelve persons the Care of Souls. 

However, if a Council of Elders had more power (not weight, 
which is another matter) than a single Elder, we would have be- 


158 


Analytics of Church Government 


tween the Elder and the Apostle (and their respective powers) 
the power of a local Council to consider, which has not so far 
been in our view; and too, the origin of this power, as well as 
its place, to discuss. So, then, by way of brief discussion, if the 
Apostles placed a Council in charge of each Church, then apart 
from the Council, there is nothing. If they, on the other hand, 
placed Elders in charge, then, even if they act together, the 
authority of such Council springs out of the authority of its 
members—and we have no more to discuss than what we had be¬ 
fore, viz.: the authority of Elders—just as with the Apostles, 
they gained no powers from Councils, but possessed them indi¬ 
vidually. The fact that we do see the Apostles placing Elders 
as overseers in charge of flocks, and see no account or mention 
of any local Councils, settles the point, that the kind of local 
Councils that existed, if indeed any, were of the kind w r here 
authority rose out of that of the members; that is to say, they 
acted together or separately, as circumstances showed the way, 
and doubtless very often deliberated over and decided on meas¬ 
ures before exercising their authority in either of the spheres of 
Rule, or Care of Souls. 

Returning now' to the starting point of this digression, we 
resume with the statement there made, that we read of no local 
Councils and we now add, that there certainly was nothing in the 
form of a Council between the order of Apostles, and regular 
workers, whose claims could come in to rival any that might be 
made for that special number of men whose status we have under 
consideration. Just as there was no Council above the Apostles, 
there was none between them and the next order. These Elders 
were overseers of the flocks, not compelled to rule or care for 
them by means of a Council, but doubtless, often making use of 
such expedients in order to win consent. They were territorially 
limited apparently. As for the Apostles, they were both over the 
flocks and the overseers, and the only authority above the latter, 
unless these special men came in between. 

We come now to the difference between the Apostles and the 
Elders, in the matter of Ministration. 

To Baptize, read, pray, marry, bury, bless, declare God’s 
forgiveness to penitents, anoint and, most special of all their func- 


Difference Between Apostles and Elders 159 

tions, administer the Last Supper—these Ministerial powers of 
the Elders need not detain us. The discussion will occur over 
the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Unless the Apostles transcend the 
regulars in some such line there seems no special field reserved 
to them in the sphere of Ministration. 

To every priesthood there had belonged nearly all the func¬ 
tions of ministration, but sometimes out of special function, and 
sometimes out of special occasion, which made the function special, 
there appeared the need of a higher ministrant than the regular. 
The Jewish High priest seems to have had a special function 
growing out of place and time—The Holy of Holies, and the 
day of Atonement. But, none the less, it was special, He alone 
could look upon the Shekinah above the Mercy-seat, which was 
the sign of the Holy Spirit of God, and bless them in His name, 
as he reappeared to the people. Now when the Mercy-seat and 
Holy of Holies and Temple all were destroyed, the Christians had 
a new temple, for each became the temple of the Holy Ghost, 
with the heart, as it were, the Holy of Holies, with its Mercy-seat. 
Such is the loving thought of all Christian people. 

Now, if it be true that the Apostles alone could give the 
Gift of the Holy Ghost, we have a condition very remarkable. 
The Holy Ghost’s descent upon men, is the very essence of the 
characteristic difference of the Church from all other institutions. 
That, just as that Shekinah could only be looked upon by the 
High priest, (who should then come out, and by blessing the 
people, enable them to share, as it were, the blessings just re¬ 
ceived by himself), so, too, the Apostles should be able to bless 
with the Holy Ghost in special way the people of God, is almost 
startling. Is it true? 

Certainly there could not be a better choice of a function to 
make special. Its dignity, its character, as partaking of the 
very essence of the New Dispensation; its connection with the 
past not after the manner of a copy, but a growth,—a revelation 
of an esoteric principle; its closeness to both member and officer; 
its adaptability to general use while reserved for special occasion, 
and, finally, what is very important, its power for forcing the 
body of the Church to hold closely to the chief order of Authority 
(since its loss would be so great) witness to this. 


160 


Analytics of Church Government 


Baptism, as the door, could hardly be selected, and the Lord’s 
Supper growing out of the Passover, which had been so popular 
in its mode of celebration, seems also by no means, the proper 
function; while this, since the Lord, the Great High Priest, hav¬ 
ing offered the one sacrifice, had passed into the Holy of Holies 
in Heaven, to the glory of the great Shekinah, and from its 
portal was ever blessing the people with the Holy Ghost, appears 
to have the deepest appropriateness when made the special func¬ 
tion of those Apostles to whom He said, “As my Father hath 
sent me, so send I you,” and who must ever occupy an ambassa¬ 
dorial office before men. 

As a matter of distinct statement, it is most certainly true 
that the Apostles did have the power of bestowing the Gift of the 
Holy Ghost, and it is also most reasonably plain that the regular 
order of Elder, did not have this power. 

It is a power manifested in two ways—the gift to those 
ordained, and the gift to the members. 

That the Gift of the Holy Ghost could be imparted by the 
Apostles is evident from the words, “And when Simon saw that 
through laying on of the Apostles’ hands, the Holy Ghost was 
given, he offered them money”—and other passages well known. 
That this Gift was needed by, and was given to the many, is also 
proved abundantly in the above, and St. Paul’s words “Have ye 
received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” 

As to the Gift in Ordination, it will scarcely be denied by 
any, but it is distinctly asserted in the well known passages in 
the matter of Timothy, “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which 
was given thee by prophesy, with the laying on of the hands of 
the presbytery,” and “stir up the gift of God, which is in thee 
by the putting on of my hands.” 

The point that will come into dispute will be, as to whether 
it was the first order alone, that had this power as its peculiar 
function, in the line of Ministration. The point can be made 
very easily, because the passages of Scripture leave a certain 
vagueness hanging over the subject, so that if we rely on plain 
statement all difficulty cannot be removed. Nearly all Scripture 
needs a setting, however, for the clear view of its meaning. 

That which first leads us to think of this function as exclu- 


Difference Between Apostles and Elders 161 

sive is, the passage which tells us how Philip, one of the seven, 
and afterwards called the Evangelist, goes on an Evangelizing 
mission to Samaria, and baptizes many; and that the Apostles 
then 6ent two of their numbers who laid their hands on them, so 
that they received the Holy Ghost. How, if we know that Philip 
was an Elder, or as Evangelist had similar powers to those of the 
Elders, this passage w r ould prove from both sides what we wish, 
but as we do not clearly know Philip’s status, we can only be 
absolutely on sure ground from the Apostolic side, which is, 
that the Apostles sent two of their own number for the express 
purpose that the converts of Samaria might have the gift of the 
Holy Ghost. Yet in spite of the element of doubt, because of 
uncertainty concerning Philip’s office, the passage in clear light 
gives the “vision” of the function as peculiarly Apostolic. How, 
if the ‘seven’ were only Deacons, and if Deacons could not preach 
and baptize, then Philip who did both, had passed beyond that 
order, and the text, from his side, would be conclusive as well, 
but when some schools of Christian thought will neither allow 
that Deacons can preach and baptize, or that Philip was possessed 
of the functions of an Elder, the only way to clinch matters, would 
be to get at the difference between an Apostolic Evangelist, and 
the lower order of Evangelists—a subject too dark for elucidation, 
except as a corollary of other lines of argument. 

Let us, however, look for a moment into the status of affairs 
in the Church at this period. The ‘seven’ are ordained apparent¬ 
ly for the service of tables, five years after Pentecost. Barna¬ 
bas has been all those years a member of the Church at Jerusalem. 
Immediately after Stephen’s death there is a scattering of many 
“preaching the word,” but the Apostles remained at Jerusalem. 
The chronology of these times indicates some two or three years 
for this period. Then the borders of the Church being enlarged 
and Saul converted, a new era dawns, in which for the first 
time, we read of Elders. It does not follow, of course, that they 
had not existed before. Barnabas, a Levite of the old system, 
who had given up all his property, had been long with the Apos¬ 
tles. And then, too, there was Barsabas, who had been ballotted 
for in the matter of the Apostolate. It is a scene in which many 
things can be surmised, and very little proved. But one of the 


162 Analytics of Church Government 

things apparently most clear is, that the power of bestowing the 
Gift of the Holy Ghost still remains vested in the Apostles. 
Philip’s functions up to this time, are as high as any that have 
been mentioned, and he did not have the power. In a condition 
such as existed with many scattered preachers, and a concentra¬ 
tion of Apostles at Jerusalem, who send out (in one case that we 
are told of, and presumably in others) two of their number to 
give this high gift, it is a most likely inference that they had 
such an object in view in remaining, at the central point. These 
things must go for what they are worth. 

It is to be noted all through the accounts of the Acts and 
Epistles, that the Apostles tried to visit and keep in touch with 
all the Churches founded. We can allege several reasons—Super¬ 
vision, Ordination and this Gift of the Holy Ghost. In the visi¬ 
tation of Samaria, we see the object which was made explicit was 
the ‘Gift.’ In St. Paul’s visitations the two purposes of super¬ 
vision and ordination are clear. But in the scene at Ephesus we 
also find him asking, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye 
believed?” Showing his care for this part of his office as well as 
the other two. 

Finally, as we run over the Scriptures we do not find the 
order of Elders exercising the functions of the Gift. There is 
the case of Ananias and St. Paul, and there are the cases of the 
Certain Prophets, and Teachers at Antioch, and the Presbytery 
in the matter of Timothy, but unless these change the statement 
above, it is safe to say, that the Elders are not seen exercising the 
function. 

Not every case of the “laying on of hands” must needs be 
taken as the 1 Gift. ’ The form was the Jewish form of blessing and 
separation. The first Christians as Jews were accustomed to a 
broad use of it. The borrowing of it for special purposes did 
not preclude its still being used for more general ones. It was 
the Gift that was Christian, not the vehicle. This much it is 
but fair to say, but it plays a possible part only in the discussion 
of the case at Antioch. 

As to the case of St. Paul, it must be confessed that there is 
nothing to lead the mind to the thought of Ananias being any¬ 
thing but a simple layman with the possible gifts of prophesy and 


I 


Difference Between Apostles and Elders 163 

healing, except that St. Paul was baptized apparently by him. 
Ananias too, “put his hands on him” and said, “Jesus hath sent 
me, that thou mightest receive thy sight and be filled with the 
Holy Ghost. ” Yet it can well be, that, Ananias was more than 
a layman. Certainly, however, we have nothing to enable us 
to place him higher in respect to office. What is plain, is the 
special commission of Jesus for this act. It is noteworthy, that 
St. Paul touched the Apostles at no point; his conversion, bap¬ 
tism, ordination. Gospel, not one of them was derived through 
them; all was by special Providences through irregular channels . 
God seemed to set entirely aside the usual order, but to be care¬ 
ful to bring Himself into sight behind the extraordinary. Ananias 
could well have been a survival of the Universal order of Special 
Messengers for a Special work. Let those claim this instance 
who can make it fit into any system, or can tell just what Ananias 
was. Hot only does it technically violate all the lines of all 
systems, but it does not even give us a “vision ” of anything as 
existing in ordered state. Occurring when even in Samaria, the 
Church was inchoate, before we even know of there being any orders 
of Elders, and at Damascus, on the furthest border of the Church, 
far from the Apostles, who were centred in Jerusalem, it is, like 
the rest of St. Paul’s strange calling and commission, an incident 
apart. As showing a possession of function by the order of 
Elders, it does not help us, and while it certainly sterns to 
show, that at least, one person beside the Apostles could under 
special order by Christ, impart the Gift, yet it does not locate 
the function anywhere else. 

The instance of the laying on of hands at Antioch, has long 
troubled the minds of men. St. Paul and St. Barnabas have 
already been exercising their Ministry, and St. Paul’s Apostle- 
ship must be granted. These two were included in the direction 
of God, to separate for His work the two Missionaries. The 
task of deciding what this laying on of hands was, is very great. 
If St. Paul was made an Apostle by it, what was Barnabas made? 
If St. Paul was already an Apostle, what was this laying on of 
hands? The simplest supposition is, that there was a new 
work, a special departure to be solemnly consecrated for all time ; 
and these men rising no higher in office, but broadening the scope 


164 Analytics of Church Government 

of their work, were sent forth with prayer and blessing. 
That St. Paul an Apostle should be present, would add nothing, 
because it was not an official rite, but a religious act, and the Holy 
Ghost was authority for all that was done. Every effort to read 
the passage along lines of official functions, is fraught with insol¬ 
uble dilemma, and in a merely religious aspect, the story is so 
simple, that it is clearly better to read it in that way. At any 
rate there is no mention of the “Gift/* and while there can be 
no denial of a blessing, yet St. Paul had already received the 
“Gift” according to the passage concerning Ananias, and being 
an Apostle, of course, had received it for his office besides (in case 
the former was the “Gift” to him as member). The use of the 
laying on of hands was too general for us to judge of the Gift, 
by the mention of the rite. It is true, its mention leads us to 
think of ordination, but we no sooner begin to discuss what these 
men were before this, and what they would become by means of 
ordination, than we are checked in our line of thought. 

Then too, if it is an ordination, both St. Paul and Barnabas 
are mentioned as those to whom the message came saying, “Sepa¬ 
rate me Barnabas and Saul,” and their share in an ordination 
shuts off the deductions apt to be made, if only Niger and Lucius 
and Manaen had been present. So then this passage while it 
leaves much in darkness, exhibits no more than that concerning 
Ananias, what the function of Elders were. Both are about St. 
Paul who so insistently claims no intervention of men for his 
office, and in both cases God Himself appears on the scene dic¬ 
tating the act, as a special thing apart from all else. What there¬ 
fore at first sight seems to prepare us for a view of wide exten¬ 
sion of the powers of ordination, becomes isolated even in re¬ 
spect to that conclusion, and in the matter of the point in hand, 
viz.: the possession of the function by the Order of Elders, by no 
means goes that far. 

The case of Timothy, now remains; and the circumstances 
are these: On his second journey St. Paul travels by land, and 
reaches as his first objective point, the cities Derbe and Lystra, 
which were the last he had reached on his first journey. Here 
at Lystra he finds Timothy, who is called “a certain disciple,” a 
term which conceals his status, though seeming to imply an ab- 


Difference Between Apostles and Elders 165 


sence of office, just as was the case of Ananias at Damascus. 
From Lystra, he carries Timothy with him, and only at Derbe, 
Lystra, Iconium, or Antioch was there any chance of finding any 
Elders, (the rest of his route being in a new country) so that if 
these had any part in the ordination of Timothy, it was at the be¬ 
ginning of the journey that he was ordained “to the presbyterate ” 
or by the presbytery, as the words may be interpreted. Timothy 
is exercising a Ministry when the scene opens in Macedonia and 
Greece. When the 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians is written, 
Timothy is included with St. Paul and Silas as writing it, and 
some of the language used in that Epistle has the words “when we 
might have been burdensome, as the Apostles of Christ. ” 

This Epistle was written from Corinth. Historically there¬ 
fore, Timothy’s elevation to office was directly under the eye of St. 
Paul, and it must also be allowed that a number of presbyters 
were plainly available, if it be taken that the words above, mean 
“by the presbytery.” Since St. Paul says afterwards, “by the 
putting on of my hands,” and we have, historically, this sight 
given us in Scripture, of the taking of Timothy at Lystra, and the 
using of him in the Macedonian and Grecian tour as a Minister, 
there can be no earthly reason to question St. Paul’s part in any 
thing that was done about Timothy. The supposition of two or¬ 
dinations, one by a presbytery and one by St. Paul, is left as a 
supposition incapable of settlement, but this presence of St. Paul 
as the agent in Timothy’s entrance upon his work, is clear enough. 
It is of course possible that he was not present at a first putting 
on of hands though hardly likely, but there then must have been 
two occasions, which supposition carries consequences hardly to 
be admitted by those whose interests are in favor of one only. 

“The laying on of the hands of the presbytery” seems the 
natural reading rather than “for the presbyterate.” In the latter 
case all use of the passage to show that Elders possessed the power 
of ordination, would be at an end, so let the discussion proceed in 
the line that the hands “of the presbytery” is the true meaning. 
But if this be the meaning there is no use to object to it. The 
use of the word presbytery, speaking of the Elders collectively, 
casts no light on the powers of the Elders in a body as “joint 
powers” as distinguished from their powers separately—“several 


166 


Analytics of Church Government 


powers.” Should it be claimed that when St. Paul says “the lay¬ 
ing on of the hands of the Presbytery,” he meant not a number of 
officers of that order, but a definite body that held powers as body, 
which powers did not otherwise exist, there would be objection, 
for as was said above, that would mean that between Apostles and 
Elders, came a Council with definite and, as it were, constitutional 
powers, and would be a blow at the principle of personality. But 
on the understanding that no body with unique powers is referred 
to, the strongest advocate of Apostolic ordination would not ob¬ 
ject to Elders acting with the Apostles in any function whatso¬ 
ever, short of ordination to the Apostolate. (It may be recalled 
how in ordination and confirmation, the order of Elders has been 
used both in East and West). Now, there is nothing in the pas¬ 
sage to show that the “presbytery” was such a body endowed with 
powers as a body, beyond the mere use of the collective word “pres¬ 
bytery.” Those who having a Jewish presbytery in mind argue 
for such a condition forget that a member of a Jewish presbytery 
had no function of office but that of sitting in Council. It was 
a governing body, and he a member. But in the Church it was 
not so. Functions of Ministry and rule and prophecy, and teach¬ 
ing were personal. The Council of Elders received its powers 
from its members and not the opposite. So, too, with the Roman 
Senate. A Senator was nothing outside the Senate. The body 
gave him power and opportunity. In the, Church, an Elder was 
not a mere member of Council, but an officer entrusted with per¬ 
sonal functions and responsibility in rule, teaching, preaching, 
and the care of Souls. 

The simple interpretation of the situation is therefore that 
St. Paul took Timothy at Lystra and that he (and Silas perhaps) 
and the presbyters laid hand on him for sacred office of a degree 
which is not mentioned, but only to be surmised from other pas¬ 
sages. It is distinctly apparent too, that by the laying on of 
hands, the “Gift” was given. 

There are then three cases. That of Ananias is altogether 
apart—a something that fits into the other strange features of St. 
Paul’s call and sending, but into nothing else that we know of. 
That of the Prophets and Teachers at Antioch shows us the pres¬ 
ence of St. Paul, and the failure of the passage to mention the 


Difference Between Apostles and Elders 167 


Gift; while the fact of St. Paul, upon whom hands are there laid, 
being already an Apostle hems us around with dilemma and keeps 
us from conclusions. And, finally this case of Timothy is again 
one where an Apostle shares the function with lower officers. 

So, to look over the whole field, we have several passages dis¬ 
tinctly pointing to the “Gift” being exclusively a function of 
the Apostles, and one passage that sufficiently shows the order of 
Elders participating when an Apostle is present, while there is 
another where, if the function were an ordination, or in any sense 
the impartation of the “Gift,” very much the same thing would 
be showed, except that it would be Prophets and Teachers or¬ 
daining, and St. Paul who is ordained. Lastly—we have one 
that apparently makes a simple layman impart the Gift. It is 
needless to say, that our whole conception of the “Gift” being the 
mark of the Apostolic office, as to functions of Ministry is shat¬ 
tered if the case of Ananias be not altogether a thing apart; but 
as for the rest, that conception can stand. 

For, the powers of the Elders are delegated powers. The 
Apostles had all, and deliberately created a lower order that it 
might exercise some of their functions that were needed to be 
placed in more general use. The extent to which the lower, should 
share with them functions of office was to be determined by need 
and propriety. Something to be retained as special seems natural 
enough, but on the other hand, broad distribution of many powers 
had its advantages. 'Under such a view there could be just as well 
as not, an admission of the Elders to a share in an ordination to 
the presbyteri al order, in connection with Apostles. To let them 
go higher and ordain to the predicated Apostolate would place 
the ordainers on the plane of the ordained (that is of course if 
present as a source of authority) and thus abolish any distinction 
they might wish to retain, but it would not be so in the case of 
the Eldership. Again, to allow the 2nd order to ordain by them¬ 
selves with no Apostle present would be to make the 2nd order 
independent of the 1st, but if it must always be that a Saul (of 
Tarsus) be among the “Prophets and Teachers” and St. Paul 
among the presbyters at Lystra, that independence could not come. 
We have seen both in the matters of Rule and the Care of Souls, 
that the Apostles shared all things as much as they could, and 


168 


Analytics of Church Government 


still retained enough to answer the demand of need and propriety; 
so, also here, they shared their functions to the very limit of right¬ 
fulness. 

There remains one matter now to touch on before we close 
this chapter. 

Because, when we read of the Holy Ghost being given, we 
read of certain miraculous outward manifestations of His pres¬ 
ence, it might be thought that the laying on of hands (not in or¬ 
dination but in the case of the general membership) was only for 
the sake of these outward signs. But a little reflection will show 
us how very much broader and deeper the purpose was. The Lord 
had promised to send the Comforter, that is to say, the Paraclete, 
or Ally, of whom the Bible speaks in the term of perpetual bless¬ 
ing, saying “The Communion (or Fellowship) of the Holy Ghost 
be with you all.” And it was on the day of Pentecost, that St. 
Peter speaking to the multitudes said “Repent and be baptized 
every one of you * * * * and ye shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Ghost. For the promise (our Lord’s of course) is unto you, 
and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as 
the Lord our God shall call.” Now, there is, of course, no limit 
of time any more than there is of space. “To all even as many as 
our Lord shall call” is about as broad as any promise of the Gos¬ 
pel. Then the Apostles went forth, and we read of the “Gift” 
being bestowed in Samaria, Ceasarea, and Ephesus; and as late 
as the end of St. Paul’s life, he is writing to Timothy to “stir up 
the gift which is in thee by the laying on of my hands,” which 
even though it be said of a Ministerial blessing, is capable of 
throwing light on the whole matter of the extent and meaning of 
the “Gift.” The miraculous signs that accompanied the “Gift” 
were outward manifestations of a Divine Presence, but we can not 
forget that the Presence was for Comfort in the sense of strength— 
for fellowship, and that, long after miracles should cease, even to 
the end of the world, the Word of blessing would be “The fellow¬ 
ship of the Holy Ghost be with you all.” So that we can not take 
the “signs” as the limits of the Gift, but as manifestations in 
measure of its reality. 

To be sure, in a sense, when the Holy Ghost came on Pente¬ 
cost, He came to the whole Church, but the fact that the Apostles 


Difference Between Apostles and Elders 169 


made the Gift special by a rite of laying on of hands, opens to us 
the view that each member could appropriate the blessing in a 
special way. Thus St. Paul thought the twelve at Ephesus had 
been baptized rightly, and so asked them about their reception of 
the “Gift.” To his surprise, he learned of their knowing only 
John’s baptism. Indeed, we can conceive of these three positions; 
the Holy Ghost being given to each one, as a gift to him separately; 
the Holy Ghost being given to the collective body, the whole church, 
and thus belonging to all who are members of the body; the Holy 
Ghost being given to the whole Church, and then to each one sepa¬ 
rately, so that he might come to the actual obtainment of his 
heritage. 

How the sight of the Apostles specially giving the Gift after 
the Spirit had come to the whole body on the day of Pentecost, 
shows us that this idea of a common heritage and an individual ob¬ 
tainment of a rightful portion, is the true conception. The first 
is precluded by the Pentecostal effusion and its appropriate 
thoughts. The second, by the acts of the Apostles on several oc¬ 
casions. The last, fits in with all the narrative, and the whole 
history and philosophy of Common gifts made special. 

Thus then the order of Elders was local, and had Rule and 
Care of souls over Congregations, with functions of Preaching and 
Teaching limited in no way that we know of, while their functions 
of Ministration extended all through those of worship, baptizing, 
administering the Lord’s Supper, and reached as far as joining 
with an Apostle in laying on of hands in ordination (presumably 
that of an Elder, not an Apostle) such as that of Timothy at Lys- 
tra. Rule over Elders, final settlement of causes, and ordination 
without an Apostle or ordination of an Apostle, seems to be the 
sphere from which they were excluded, and there is not a line to 
indicate that they, the Elders, gave the “Gift” to members just 
baptized whatever the “Gift” is taken to be. 

The Apostles gave the “Gift,” ordained separately, and too, 
all orders including Apostles, ruled over Elders, and had fullest 
powers in the care of Souls, including the power of appeal neces¬ 
sarily and specifically. 

Councils were special machinery, in no wise like a Senate or 
Sanhedrim, but derived, and did not bestow powers. Only one is 


170 


Analytics of Church Government 


mentioned as including Apostles; and Elders participated in that. 
As to local Councils, they are not mentioned, but no principle is 
encountered to preclude them. 

As to Deacons, there is the mystery of mysteries. It may as 
well be said here as anywhere, that there was a “deaconship of 
tables” and a “deaconship of the Word” but as to whether the 
Deacon of Scripture participated in both services can not be de¬ 
termined without assumptions. There was no reason why they 
should not have preaching as one of their functions, and it looks 
as though they did. The Deacon was an assistant plainly, and 
having given his life to sacred things, the enjoyment and useful¬ 
ness of preaching would have been only a gain, without drawback 
to the Church. If St. Philip and Stephen were true deacons, 
the question would be settled, but that is just where the proof 
halts. However being an assisting order, with no hint that any 
functions of Rule or Care of Souls belonged to them, their precise 
niche in the general scheme does not need further discussion here. 


CHAPTER IV 


Discussion of tbe Special ©rt>er 

If the Apostolate passed away, what became of the Special 
Functions—the oversight of Elders, the powers of appellate juris¬ 
diction, and the bestowal of the “Gift?” 

They could not be lost. This is evident from the nature of 
these functions. It would be superfluous to attempt to give proof 
for so evident a truth. All that is needed is to call attention to 
the difference between those apostolic characteristics which the men 
brought into the office, and those which the office bestowed on the 
men. Matthias had been selected because he had “kept company” 
with the eleven from the first of the Lord’s Ministry, and was a 
witness of the Resurrection; but these things he brought into the 
office. What the office bestowed upon him, is the point. It can¬ 
not be contended of course for a moment, that after the death of 
the first Apostle other men could be found who could bring to 
the office these personal qualifications. If the Special functions 
could only be bestowed on men who had seen the Lord in the 
flesh, etc., then the time would inevitably come when the Special 
Functions must lapse. But why should this be the case? We 
can understand how it would enhance the functions to have the 
personal qualifications, but that they should be the i sine qua non’ 
is another matter. 

In the first age, it was so entirely rational to secure this en¬ 
hancement of prestige and value; in another, it was impossible. 
The fact that the Eleven made the point of finding a man who 
would bring to the office such a qualification, can be interpreted, 
to be sure, to mean that the qualification was essential, but it 
need by no means be so interpreted. The functions that would 
come with the office can very easily be conceived as given to men 
who did not have such personal qualifications as that of knowing 
the Master. Again, there is no difficulty at all in understanding 
how such a qualification could apply to a choice between those 
present then, and yet not become a reason for the death of the of¬ 
fice under other conditions. We can choose our interpretation 


172 


Analytics of Church Government 


as we will, however, if only we see the distinction between the 
qualifications possessed before the office is given, and those powers 
which the office adds. The personal qualification must lapse and 
the Special Functions can not. We can not think of ordination, 
appeal, and supervision, lost to the Church because there could 
no longer be found men who had been with the Lord in all His 
work. If not bestowed on other men, they must yet exist some¬ 
where. 

If the Special Functions could not be lost, where are they 
located ? 

It is very easy to see that the following courses were open to 
adoption—theoretically at least. 

To bestow the Special Functions on a Special Order above 
that of Elders, thus practically making their own order in regard 
to functions permanent, even though certain things other than 
functions could not be continued and other distinctions might 
come in. 

To institute a body out of the officers already existing, which 
body would be the seat of the Special Functions. 

To institute a body out of all elements both officers and mem¬ 
bers, which body would administer the Special Functions. 

A little reflection will show us that these practically ex¬ 
hausted the possibilities: Others might be conceived, but not un¬ 
der the conditions in view. For instance anything like the papal 
theory negatives the whole condition of the Apostolic College that 
we have treated as existing. The papal theory posits a papacy 
from the very first. So while as a possibility the Apostles could 
in view of their death have bestowed the Special Functions on 
one man instead of on an order or a body, there is no use taking 
up time with such a mere and unalleged possibility. 

Again, some arrangements of officers for the exercise of the 
Special Functions, different from that of the one we have sup¬ 
posed, might be conceived, but that too need not detain us. 

The three courses in fact reveal two lines first, and then one 
of these divided into two making the three in all. For, the choice 
is first as to leaving the Special Functions to an order of officers 
higher than Elders, or to some body of men, as distinguished from 
an order. Then the component parts of said body can differ so 


Discussion of the Special Order 


173 


as to be either officers alone, or officers and members together. 
Thus the Episcopal, Presbyterian and Congregational theories 
spring out of the different conceptions as to the location of the 
Special Functions after the Apostles’ death. But the Presby¬ 
terian and Congregational make common cause against the Epis¬ 
copal in contending for a body as against an prder, though, as we 
shall see, the Congregational greatly modifies the Special Func. 
tions. 

Before going into the evidence, let the ideas that these words 
order and body stand for be made as explicit as possible. Enough 
has already perhaps been brought out, but the greatest clearness 
ought to be focussed at this particular point. 

If the Special Functions are bestowed upon an order, it would 
mean that each member or unit of that order would possess them 
personally as much as if he were the only one. There being several 
or many entails the accommodating of his powers to their posses¬ 
sion of equal powers, and all manner of adjustments and combina¬ 
tions can ensue, provided the powers of the order be secured to 
each one of the order. But if on the other hand, the Special 
Functions are bestowed upon a body (or set of bodies in fact), 
then it is the body that as a body possesses the powers. The 
members of the body only come into consideration as parts of a 
body, and however much possessed of other powers, are powerless 
in respect of these particular powers except in the body. Thus 
the bodies practically become an order. They have as units par¬ 
ticular powers and that, too, in common with other units of the 
same class, and they must adjust their exercise of power to all the 
rest. They are built up units, and not personal units, but there 
comes into play an order of units just as much as when the units 
are personal. So then in our discussion we must bear in mind 
that after all the Special Functions are given to a Special Order— 
only in the Presbyterian theory the members or units of the order 
are bodies, not personalities—things made of men, not men in 
simplicity. The contest resolves itself into one as to personality 
and impersonality. If the Special Functions were given to the 
Elders personally, then by the fact of these powers, the Elders 
would have been raised above the general Elder-level. If given 
to certain of them, not all, then those certain ones would have 


174 


Analytics of Church Government 


been raised above the rest. The Presbyterian solution therefore 
is the supposition of a set of bodies, receiving and exercising a 
power of ordination, appeal, and rule, over Elders, just as in the 
Episcopal theory there is a set of men equipped with these Special 
Functions. Thus we clearly see that the issue is, between per¬ 
sonality and impersonality. Something above Elders there must 
be. With one theory it is men, with the other it is bodies of 
men. These bodies of men act like a Senate; until the decree is 
made up there is nothing; the act of the body alone possesses au¬ 
thority. The Congregational theory differs in that the bodies are 
differently constituted, and there is no attempt to organize bodies 
higher than the Congregation. 

We come now to examine the evidence to see whether the 
Special Functions were given to an order of men, or an order >f 
bodies, and whether these bodies were of the Presbyterian or 
Congregational character. The first to be taken for test is the 
Episcopal theory of a Special set of men. 

There are no less than seventy-eight texts where the word 
“Apostle” occurs, and in seventy of these the meaning is undis¬ 
puted, but in the remaining eight, there is less certainty. In 
seven of these eight, others than the great Apostles are called 
apostles, and such application of the word, at once calls for a 
study of the meaning, so that it might be seen whether they 
were called Apostles because possessed of the functions of that 
office, or whether the word is used in some other sense. The 
eighth text shows clearly that there can be a larger sense. It 
is the one in which the Master says at the time of the Last 
Supper, ‘ ‘ The Servant is not greater than his Lord, neither 
he that is sent greater than he that sent him.” Of course the 
pointed choice of the illustration is apparent, but yet the word 
still seems to have the use, others than the Master were wont to 
give it. In his mouth ‘Apostle’ might mean his chosen twelve, 
but to all the users of language, it had a general meaning (After 
all He doubtless used Aramean not Greek, but we are going by 
the Greek translation and presume it correct even in the matter 
of this shade of meaning), so that no one can shut it off from that 
idea. Nor is there any matter depending on it. Our study of 
the text allows the conclusion that there is a general meaning with 


/ 


Discussion of the Special Order 175 

a pointed application due to the fact that the Lord had chosen the 
general word as a name for His special officials. 

There now remains seven texts to be examined. There are 
two concerning Barnabas; two concerning false apostles; one con¬ 
cerning Silas and Timothy; one concerning the companions of 
Titus when he is sent to Corinth; one concerning Epaphroditus. 
In other words Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Luke (not certainly but 
most probably) Epaphroditus and certain very powerful antagon¬ 
ists of St. Paul are called apostles, that is to say men who were 
in the very front rank as workers, the very chiefest of all that 
we know are so-called, and it is necessary to see if the word used 
to designate them be used generally or restrictedly. The very 
prominence of the men to whom the term is applied in every case 
leads directly to the initial thought that there was a rank of office 
as well as general suitability for the use of the word apostle, in 
their case. 

The text in Corinthians concerning false apostles, throws a 
great deal of light, and we will discuss it first. It is in 2nd Corin¬ 
thians, that St. Paul is driven to vindicate his own authority and 
assert in unqualified terms his full apostleship. This was, be¬ 
cause of trouble made by certain ones, of whom he says “such are 
false apostles, deceitful workers transforming themselves into the 
apostles of Christ.” Now, how could such a thing be? how are 
we to understand the rise of such a condition that St. Paul’s 
apostleship must be asserted in order to meet the claim of apostle¬ 
ship on the part of others? A conflict in the region of apostle¬ 
ship drawing from St. Paul the words, “I am in nothing, be¬ 
hind the very chiefest apostles” seems very strange, but there 
cannot be the slightest doubt, let us remember, about the issue be¬ 
ing one concerning authority, for the light is as full and clear 
as can be: St. Paul attacks them as “false apostles,” and says 
that he himself is “in nothing behind the very chiefest apostles.” 
The circumstances of all the situation were these. The Council 
of Jerusalem had been held, but its decrees had not bejcome 
known. Some preachers and officers had gone from Jerusalem 
before the issue that led to the Council had developed. We read 
of how the Apostles “sent forth Barnabas to go as far as Antioch’ ’ 
and of a great scattering of the preachers of the Gospel on every 


176 


Analytics of Church Government 


side. The letter of the Council says “That certain which went 
out from us/’ Some of these pressed too far towards Europe, to 
hear of the Council. It was at Antioch that the issue about the 
Jewish ceremonial laws arose, and it was these very laws of Juda¬ 
ism, that led to the trouble at Corinth, and elsewhere, but An¬ 
tioch was near, and St. Paul was there to act. After the Council 
settled the question, it became impossible to reach all those who 
had scattered to do the work, consequently at many points St. 
Paul encountered men who preached a Gospel in the swathing 
bands of Jewish ceremonial. This much is very clear. 

When we come to consider the rank of these men, we have as 
guiding points these considerations. The apostles sent out men 
to preach, but not as mere bearers of letters or tidings. The word 
emissaries is wholly misleading. What troubled St. Paul about 
these men was not a message from the apostles at Jerusalem but 
that these men laid claim to office, and to the same office that he 
himself held. If they had claimed a message, he could have an¬ 
swered with the decree of the Council and the words of the letter 
“to whom we gave no such commandment,” but it was not a war 
of messages. Authority was at stake. They claimed an office 
“Apostles of Christ. ,, He could only meet the issue by such 
an appeal to his history, his sufferings, his visions, his life, his own 
office that he must needs stand before the Corinthians unquestion¬ 
able whatever these others might be. Now what were they? “False 
Apostles” might mean false messengers from the Apostles, but 
“Apostles of Christ” gives it another aspect. Preachers they must 
have been, and of such large authority, and of so great earnestness 
and ability, as to bring about the condition we see. They were 
officers, certainly, but most assuredly officers of larger scope of 
power than Elders, to have had such influence as to have raised 
issues at all with St. Paul, and to have become such serious ob¬ 
stacles in his path. 

That they were false in that they had intruded into an office 
not theirs is not to be contemplated. Their falseness was in their 
Gospel, rather. Having come forth at the time that Barnabas, 
we will say, went to Antioch to go as far as opportunity allowed, 
establishing Churches and caring for them, they preached, as best 
they knew, the Gospel, and not knowing of the Council, and its 


Discussion of the Special Order 


177 


degrees, nor having the spirit of St. Paul, they warped it to Juda¬ 
ism. When they met St. Paul, they refused to change, and the 
issue came. Evangelists of high authority we might call them. 
At any rate there can be no mistaking them for Elders, or mere 
bearers of tidings, or impostors. 

To be the last, would in fact imply opportunity to pose as an 
Apostle—would imply the very extension of the office, which is 
resisted by some. In the time of St. John’s later life, he speaks 
of “them which say they are apostles, and are not,” and here the 
natural interpretation is that he speaks of impostors to wide¬ 
spread office. St. Paul’s manner of contention with his opponents 
precludes our thinking of them as out and out impostors, but there 
is nothing in the passage in Revelation to bar the idea. In the pas¬ 
sage in Revelation we must either infer an apostolate widely ex¬ 
isting, thus offering the chance for impostors, or translate the 
word “messengers.” But it is hard to see how the idea of mes¬ 
sengers would fit the facts. If the late date for the book be 
taken, the great Apostles are dead. If the earlier date even be 
taken, then Ephesus has had the long ministry of St. Paul, and the 
subsequent one of Timothy not very long before, and was surely 
fortified against those early preachers, who went out before the 
Council, or (if any insist upon the idea of emissary) those early 
messengers. To try these apostles and “find them liars” im¬ 
plies something more than the examination of a messenger; it 
rather seems to indicate testing by their fruit. The word apos¬ 
tle again seems to mean something like an Evangelist of high au¬ 
thority. 

Undoubtedly if there was in the early Church an order of 
men who whatever their name, did the work of an Evangelist with 
powers higher than that of Elders, they must have caused trouble, 
if only because of imitation. Still the Master Himself had sent 
the Apostles into just such a work, and so it must have seemed 
natural to them to send men from place to place. The chance of 
imposture and wrong preaching, as time went on, must have been 
great. That there were Evangelists, we know as a fact, and it may 
be, they were called “apostles” when of a certain order. 

Doubtless St. John like St. Paul judged these men who 
claimed apostleship by their message rather than by their ordina- 


178 Analytics of Church Government 

tion. Both these grand leaders were terribly severe against 
heresy. St. Paul fought Judaism, and St. John the Gnostic or 
Hellenizer to the death. It is in their writings that high officers 
are deemed false officers because preachers of heresy. But if the 
two texts above treating of false apostles suggests the condition 
of things in the period when the Church began to extend its work, 
just as well in the remaining five we see the same suggestion. 

Let us take that concerning Epaphroditus for instance. “My 
companion in labor and fellow soldier but your apostle” are the 
words. The translation “messenger” fits admirably, but the cir¬ 
cumstances and other words indicate that this “messenger” was 
so much more, that a higher meaning for the word apostle comes 
into view. For all that Timothy occupied such a high sphere 
of work in Ephesus, St. Paul called him back to be with him, to 
minister to him. Titus too, between Cretan and Dalmatian minis¬ 
tries seems to have been with him. So also Epaphropituos had gone 
to minister to St. Paul. He could well therefore be more than 
a messenger. And we read he was St. Paul’s “companion in 
labor, and fellow soldier,” and was high in the work at Philippi. 
We cannot drag the text by force into the higher meaning, but 
it may well mount there of its own accord. “Your apostle” may 
really be a term of adequate honor. 

In the case of the companions of Titus, the word can again 
most naturally mean Messengers, but St. Paul’s description of 
them shows them usually engaged in large and general work, and 
if the word apostle had technical application to men of this 
larger work, it could easily fit this case. 

There were two of them. Of one, St. Paul says, “whose 
praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches” and this 
is thought to be St. Luke. Evidently he was not an Elder both 
from the view we gain from the words “all the Churches” and 
the circumstances surrounding St. Paul’s work at this time. The 
other is described as one “whom we have oft-times proved dili¬ 
gent in many things” and gives us the idea that he was one of 
those travelling with St. Paul, as Silas, Timothy, Titus and Luke 
travelled with him. So while their work on this specific mission 
was the care of the Collection, there is no doubt that these “Apos¬ 
tles of the Churches, and glory of Christ” were important men 


Discussion of the Special Order 


179 


of large work. From one standpoint, simple “messengers/’ and 
from another, having rank and dignity. 

The passage in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, speaks of 
St. Paul, Silas, and Timothy as Apostles, “When we might have 
been burdensome as the apostles of Christ/ ’ inclines us still more 
to the idea of some order of workers called apostles who transcend¬ 
ed the Elders. The idea of Messenger sinks almost out of view 
in the passage, and with St. Paul known to be an Apostle in 
fullest sense, these others included with him must share to some 
extent the allusion to his office. The compulsive force of logic 
is hardly to be appealed to here, anymore than in many other 
places, for we are seeking clear vision, rather than logical com¬ 
pulsions, but certainly the passage does give us vision—we seem 
to see three men, far from the Twelve, whom the circumstances 
of their mission reveal as engaged in very large work, and on 
account of this dignity of functions called Apostles. 

There remain only the two texts in the book of Acts, where 
St. Paul and St. Barnabas are called Apostles, and in these, even 
if we are able to lug in a sense of “messenger” or “sent men,” 
yet the other more technical idea is the simple and natural mean¬ 
ing to a degree almost of certainty. 

The eight texts that seem to differ from the other seventy 
are therefore seen to be quite capable of agreement. That is to 
say, they hold the word apostle to a technical meaning quite easily 
and naturally. To be sure they do not compel it to that technical 
content, but they by no means spill the technical. Even in the 
text “the servant is not greater than his Lord/’ nor the “apostle 
than he that sent him/’ the technical meaning gives the pith to 
the illustration. Of the seven others, those concerning false 
apostles and Silas, Timothy and Barnabas clearly lean to the side 
of the technical; and of the remaining two, the balance is about 
equal—at first flush, seemingly plainly to mean mere messenger, 
but on closer examination appearing quite to admit the higher 
idea. 

Finally, it may be said, that the use of the word apostle had 
to be discussed, and while its application to so many others may 
at first surprise us, yet that may be because we had combined in 
our mind the personal qualities and official functions of the 


180 


Analytics of Church Government 


twelve, and when the Scriptures in applying the word to others, 
had in view only the latter, we were not prepared for the change. 
It may be, that now we are ready to pass from the study of the 
Word Apostle to the study of the Work of certain men, so as 
to see if when we strip the word of the personal phase, we can 
yet find the official. 

There can be no doubt but that in all study of Church Polity 
in the Scriptures themselves, there stands directly across the path, 
the rock of the Ministry of Timothy and Titus, in their respective 
temporary fields. St. Paul writes so explicitly about their work 
that when we have shadows elsewhere, we have broadest daylight 
thrown upon the page at this point. 

Crete was a densely populous island, with upwards of a 
hundred cities, and Ephesus was a city with a highly developed 
Christian work, and many Elders. The fields were therefore very 
large. Their powers in these large fields was very great. Most 
explicitly we see these men given the functions of Rule over Eld¬ 
ers, Appellate jurisdiction, and Ordination: We are compelled 
to see at once in them the very thing we are seeking—successors 
of the Apostles in regard to official functions, unless it be, that 
because their stay in these fields was temporary, or because they 
may have acted as deputies of St. Paul, they are not to be so 
classed. But even if these powers were temporary, yet their pos¬ 
session shows both the trend of the Apostle’s mind, and the pos¬ 
sibility of apostolic functions being bestowed on others. 

If the possibility to give at all existed, the adoption of such 
a plan for permanence was only a question of wisdom. That 
tremendous bridge—the possibility, at any rate was crossed, for 
St. Paul gave. But the assertion of temporary functions in the 
realm of Ministration is the assertion of something new, in the 
world. It is no more a custom in religious matters, than in 
military, to make degrees of office temporary. A Captain may 
be given a Colonel’s work temporarily, but if given a Colonel’s 
commission it is by common custom a permanent elevation to that 
rank. And so too ever and everywhere the raising to highest 
functions of Ministration is by means of the bestowal of higher 
office. Deposition is of course admissible, but that is not in ques¬ 
tion here. Degradation is as injurious in one sphere of grades as 


Discussion of the Special Order 


181 


in another. Although extent of command or work may often be 
changed, the office itself is universally a permanent thing. And 
again, historically, Timothy’s office is seen as far as the 2nd 
Epistle, written just before St. Paul’s death, while of Titus it is 
said, in the same Epistle, that he had departed to Dalmatia, where 
his work could well be as large as in Crete. 

If on the other hand, the work in their respective fields might 
be changed for work in other fields, yet a change in their functions 
of office in the other can in no wise be asserted, unless there were 
evidence of some positive nature. 

Yet after all, the idea of temporary office in the case of these 
men rests upon the supposition that they only had these powers 
as deputies. St. Paul had said, “For this cause left I thee in 
Crete” and the whole tone of the three Epistles shows a sort of 
supremacy over them. And certainly, it may be granted that in 
a sense they were deputies of St. Paul, but let the analysis of their 
deputyship be made. Did St. Paul for instance take for deputy 
one who was equal in functions of office to the work, or did he 
take one whose office was unequal? The idea of deputyship in 
the sphere of personal Authority, and that of Authority of office 
is very different. The functions of Ministration require the office 
to be there. St. Paul would not take a mere layman and say 
“ordain Elders in every cit/ ’ though he might well select one who 
had the right to ordain, and use him in his own stead for these 
functions in Crete, or raise him to the degree before he went. The 
very first thing we must posit in a case of deputy Ministration is, 
the sufficiency of the deputy in the matter of office. And in the 
case before us, we have only to ask ourselves if Timothy who at the 
time of the 2nd Epistle had these functions lost them on the death 
of St. Paul soon after, in order to see whether the deputyship of 
this officer was that of a man who did, or did not, possess the office 
which he exercised. Personal authority can be just dropped often¬ 
times, but official authority requires a consideration of the office 
on which it rests. Now St. Paul’s mind was on “the Gift of God 
which is in thee by the putting on of my hand” and he bade 
Timothy “stir it up,” so there is in the 2nd Epistle enough to 
negative both the idea of temporariness and function by deputy. 

What we may well see in the case of Timothy and Titus is 


182 


Analytics of Church Government 


this:—The Apostles unable to go everywhere at the time of need 
sent men in their stead, and gave them the necessary powers. 
These powers were functions of office; for the men must go in the 
name of Christ as well as of the particular apostle, or apostles, who 
sent them in his, or their, stead. Timothy, with the “Gift of 
God in him by the laying on of my hands” could be selected by 
St. Paul to go in his place. 

Now the powers that Timothy could exercise at a distance 
from St. Paul, he could certainly exercise when by his side, so 
that we are brought to see the cases of Silas and Barnabas in this 
light also. Barnabas seems not to have had his authority in any¬ 
wise as a deputy of St. Paul, (and it is not so asserted by anyone) 
but he had the same powers as Timothy at the very least. After 
we have seen Timothy and Titus at work, and read what is said of 
Silas as the companion of St. Paul, there seems no reason to deny 
to him functions equal to those of the other two. Why could there 
not be others also? See the number of men St. Paul gathered 
and used in large work, calling them to him, and sending them 
from him. Deputies they are, “ companions in labor,” fellow sol¬ 
diers,” men “whom we have oftentimes proved diligent in many 
things,” “whose praise is in the Churches.” We can only infer 
their powers, but when we find the conditions calling for work 
similar to that of Timothy and Titus, and we find these two with 
the powers which are specified, we can not shut ourselves up to a 
denial of a natural use of men after the pattern seen by express 
exposition: These men are not doing the work of Elders; that 
much is very plain. And they require large authority for the 
work in which they are engaged. Then too, they are associated 
with Timothy and Titus most intimately at this very period of St. 
Paul’s care of all the Churches. 

One other man there is, whose work and name is that of an 
apostle, St. James the Just; but unfortunately it is disputed 
whether he was the same as St. James the Less, or different. If 
he, “ the Lord’s brother” was a different man, then such havoc is 
played to two of the contending theories, that they would be al¬ 
most or quite driven off the field. In early days, it was perfectly 
clear, who this James was. The Scriptures assume indeed that 
the description “The Lord’s brother” was sufficient. (And still 


Discussion of the Special Order 


183 


it is plain enough). But as long as there is a dispute about 
identity nothing can be done in an analysis like this without going 
into the merits of that dispute. This would take us far afield. If 
on the other hand, however, he is identical with St. James the 
Less, one of the twelve, there is another horn of the dilemma for 
those who oppose the Episcopal theory; which other horn again, it 
is not within our view to touch on here. It is sufficient to say 
here, that the great probability is that the two were different men, 
and St. James the Just, was one of the very first instances of men 
other than the Twelve being given functions of office similar to 
those of the twelve, viz.: Rule over Elders, Appellate Jurisdiction, 
and the Right of Ordination. 

The strength of the position then is this—Having seen clearly 
the powers of the Elders and the Apostles and the difference of 
functions between them, we find in Scripture a number of men 
who after the Apostles bear the greatest names belonging to the 
early Chruch—James, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Luke, 
Epaphroditus and others, and these men have a work of such a 
general nature that it is impossible to see in them the class of 
workers known as Elders. The work of some of them is given so 
plainly, that we know just what it was. We would call these men, 
(all except James) Evangelists from their work, and supposing 
there could be Evangelists of two orders, as to their functions (a 
proposition all in the dark, however), we w T ould call them Evange¬ 
lists of the highest order. However that might be, when we come 
to look into the functions of these men we can not class them as 
Elders in functions, any more than Elders in work. The functions 
of some are clearly seen, and the association of these men in work 
with others and the similarity of conditions around all of them, 
obliges us to see men of a class to whom the denial of the same 
functions would be baseless (Silas and Timothy for instance; or 
Titus and Luke). To all of these men whom we have named, the 
term Apostle is given in Scripture, and while there may be a lesser 
meaning attached, yet even if the word be taken as of high sense 
it but describes the functions we see some of them exercising. 

Taking both name and functions and studying the matter 
closely, we find that James, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, and almost 
beyond doubt, Silas also have functions we have seen to be 


184 


Analytics of Church Government 


apostolic, viz: Rule over Elders, Appeal, and Right of Ordina¬ 
tion. (Silas and Timothy left in Macedonia, as Titus was after¬ 
wards left in Corinth —to set in order —is no stretch of imagina¬ 
tion, but an inherent probability). 

This coincidence of name and functions—but most emphati¬ 
cally the existence of the functions—gives us the plain sight of 
a class of men just filling the place in question. Besides these, we 
have in two places mention of false apostles, as though there were 
a wide field for men of that rank. From all this, we infer a set 
of men whose functions of office enabled them to act as deputies 
of the Apostles, or labor by their side in the same class of work 
(and Barnabas even leaves St. Paul and goes to Cyprus on his own 
evangelical mission). Evangelical in work and apostolical in 
function they are, and constitute a Special Order. 

Nothing is more natural than that the Apostles should have 
provided for the great work by endowing men with adequate func¬ 
tions. Their own position was perfectly secure, and the class of 
local workers known as Elders could not possibly suffice for the 
task before the Church. When then we see St. Paul and all these 
others engaged in the larger work, and with the larger powers, it 
seems too natural to occasion any wonder. The seventy had gone 
out in our Lord’s time with the very same powers as the Twelve, 
so there was even precedent for such a course. Furthermore, we 
have an insight into the position of St. Paul, who is not added to 
the Twelve, but is brought into this order of workers of apostolic 
functions, yet not as the rest were, by men, but by the direct com¬ 
mission of God, and in such wise that no thought of deputyship. 
(Even Barnabas was sent out by the Twelve to go as far as 
Antioch) could attach to him, but he was “not a whit behind the 
very chiefest apostles.” 

The next step is to examine the Scriptures to see what evi¬ 
dence there is for the view that the Special Functions—Rule over 
Elders, Appeal and Ordination, were bestowed on a body composed 
of the Officers. 

The first thing of course, is to find the body, or bodies, and 
next to discuss their powers. In the very forefront, stands the 
Council of Jerusalem, and while this is a body much higher than 
any other likely to be alleged, from the fact that it contained the 


V 


Discussion of the Special Order 185 

Apostles, yet we could hardly pass, to consider others, until this 
had been discussed. We have already seen something about it. 

This Council was composed of the Apostles, James the Just, 
and the Elders of the Jerusalem Church; and the commissioners of 
Antioch, St. Paul and St. Barnabas, had some kind of standing 
in it. Also it would seem, the brethren were involved to some 
extent. It was in all probability a Special Council; but the hold¬ 
ing of this, somewhat inclines us to see a custom of which this 
is an instance. To go so far however in our inferences as to say 
that the Church of Jerusalem was regularly governed by such a 
body, and the decision of some such body was necessary, is to strike 
directly at the personal powers of the Apostles as well as to go 
far beyond Scripture. The first thing we must posit about the 
Church at Jerusalem is, that there was power there, adequate to 
all issues without any semblance of a Council. To find the exist¬ 
ence of anything like a governing body at Jerusalem whose acts 
and decisions took the place of the personal authority there 
present in the Apostles, requires very different evidence. (It is 
only an inference that there were any other meetings of a Council 
at all; and to infer their regular assembly with full control over 
all affairs is a great deal beyond warrant. 

This Council has been always treated as a Special or Occasion¬ 
al Council because it considered affairs beyond the bounds of 
Jerusalem, and in that light it leaves untouched the question of 
the government of local matters. 

When we ask if this Council had more power than an Apostle, 
we are obliged to say that since the Apostles personally received 
every power possible, it was impossible for the body to have more 
than they. As has been said, it was possible to gain weight by unan¬ 
imity of action, but not power. If a Council had more power than 
the Apostles, then, if Civil conditions prevented a Council, power 
would be lost. St. Paul was soon cut off from Apostolic Councils, 
but never from apostolic powers. We are sooner or later obliged to 
face the question whether there was anything above the Apostles. 

Of course it is somewhat of a mystery how the affairs of that 
tremendous Church at Jerusalem were administered. The Apostles 
were there for years, all together, and then they came and went, 
and then it seems as if James the Just, remained in charge. Of 


186 


Analytics of Church Government 


any governing body we read not a word. As long as any Apostle 
was there, the Special Functions of Rule over Elders, Appeal, 
and Ordination, certainly were vested in him. We can easily infer 
any number of occasions when all orders came together “to con¬ 
sider of this matter” without ever thinking of the Special Func¬ 
tion being lodged in such a body. And that, after all, is the ques¬ 
tion. When we have found even a governing body, we have yet 
to investigate it as to these functions. When too we have assumed 
a body clothed with such powers as Timothy and Titus had, we 
have to reconcile the possession of such powers at one and the 
same time both by a body and personally by men. 

The Council at Jerusalem is the only instance of a body of 
officers considering Church affairs that we have specifically men¬ 
tioned in Holy Writ, but as has once before been said, there were 
several Elders to one Church in a number of instances at the very 
least. tNo one dare go so far as to say in all, for not only is there 
no evidence, but such an abundance of fit material is contrary to 
natural conditions in that heathen world, and St. Paul is seen to 
be strict in his instructions to Timothy and Titus on this point. 
He ordained Elders in the Cities he passed through as many as he 
could, probably, and that is as far as we can go. But on the whole 
it may be said that the preliminary condition of numbers was 
present for the enablement of such a formation as a body of Elders 
to be made in very many Churches, even if not in all. 

This being the case, the next step is to get sight of some such 
body, so that we can see upon what lines it is organized. The mere 
presence of several Elders throws very little light upon the nature 
of the manner in which they would organize a Council, even sup¬ 
posing they should organize one at all. There were several 
Apostles at Jerusalem, and yet we have no thought of their form¬ 
ing a Council with powers above those which each one had in¬ 
dividually. So, it is of the utmost importance to examine some 
body that we have brought into view in the Scriptures, and study 
the principles of its organization. Did the body they organized, 
supposing they did form one, transcend the members in powers, 
or only have such as belonged already to the Elders? Of course 
if they themselves brought it into being, the powers of the creature 
could not transcend those of its creators, (except as bom out of 


Discussion of the Special Order 


187 


consent, if not authority), but if the Apostles organized these 
bodies, they could give them powers above that of the component 
Elders. All these things we must try to see from some actual 
body. There is especially too, one power we must try to trace— 
the power of combining with other similar bodies, and producing 
thereby a body with yet higher powers than the first set, (Appeal 
for instance); for if there be no set of men, (after the Apostles 
died), above these local bodies, or no set of bodies, there would be 
only a type of Congregational Polity left. 

It is thought that a view of such a body is given in the pas¬ 
sage where St. Paul says to Timothy “Neglect not the gift—given 
thee—with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery/’ We 
can not of course tell whether by “the presbytery” St. Paul al¬ 
ludes to the order of presbyters, or the body of presbyters; or the 
body of presbyters collectively but loosely, or as an organized body 
constituting a presbytery something like the Jewish Council jr 
Sanhedrim which condemned our Lord, and commissioned Saul 
to make havoc of the Christians at Damascus (for the only three 
uses of the word presbuterion in the New Testament are in these 
passages), but we can take the last, and go upon that line as far 
as it will carry us. 

It is a little appalling to find the Sanhedrim the type of 
Church Government—to* think of the Master taking the very 
Council which condemned Him, as the model for His own insti¬ 
tutions, but there is certainly room for differences. The Syna¬ 
gogues among the Gentiles were more or less on this pattern also. 
Let us suppose then, that the words of St. Paul “the presbytery” 
show us that in all these Churches where there were several Elders, 
there was an organized body called “the Presbytery.” 

The points now to get at are these—whether, 1st, this body 
transcended its members in functions, and 2ndly, had the power 
of creating larger bodies who would be heirs of the Special Func¬ 
tions : in so far as these Presbyteries did not possess them. 

This body, or order of presbyters at Lystra (presumably 
Lystra) ordained, but the element of uncertainty for us, is the 
presence of St. Paul; and also whether it was by right of the in¬ 
dividual powers of the Elders, or by a power of the body alone. If 
St. Paul was present, the case falls. If the individual Elder had 


188 Analytics of Church Government 

the ordaining power, it only proves that Elders could ordain. It 
is only on the supposition that the body acted without St. Paul, 
and by powers vested in it as a body above its component parts, 
that this one of the Special Functions is seen possessed. 

How to get at any indication of the right solution of the 
point is the trouble. The analogy of the Jewish Presbyteries will 
help us, but little, for the source of their authority was the people, 
and they confessedly are not an exact type. 

When we come to Appeal it is appeal from just such a body 
as this presbytery, that is in question. When we investigate Rule 
over Elders we have to consider that if the Rule was only that of 
a presbytery over one of its members, we can get no further than 
Rule in the single Church, possibly single Congregation (Lystra 
hardly had more at this time). Even then though a presbytery 
be inferred from St. Paul’s language, the Special Functions are 
not provided for. 

As to the question raised by seeing Timothy and Titus 
equipped with these Special Functions while the Elders of Ephesus 
and of Crete are all there, little need be said except that it exists. 

To conclude then, the presence of many Elders does not pos¬ 
sibly mean any thing more than reason for consultation or division 
of work, but may be taken as indicative of consolidation. The 
mention of “the presbytery” may not mean more than an allusion 
to the rank of the men ordaining Timothy, but may be taken as 
speaking of a regular body called a Presbytery. The relation of 
members to the whole, and powers of the whole as compared to 
those of the members, is an unsolved problem. The vesting of the 
Special Functions in this body is unseen, and except in the case 
of Ordination, impossible. The existence of any bodies above a 
Presbytery, and the scheme of their powers is wholly dependent on 
some other line of proof than this text, in 1st Timothy. 

The Council of Jerusalem might be thought to convey some 
ideas of such higher bodies, wherein representatives of the lower 
could form a body endowed with the Special Functions, but as 
we have seen, that Council was formed on other lines, and was 
typical of nothing that came after—formed a precedent for noth¬ 
ing save the right of Councils to exist. 

Lastly:—If the ground of Authority were shifted so as to 


Discussion of the Special Order 


189 


spring out of the people, instead of from the Apostles the exist¬ 
ence of a Presbytery would have more meaning, but our Analysis 
has seen Christ giving Authority to the Apostles, and up to the 
time of Lystra they had not yet given it away. And besides, we 
are seeking the seat of the Special Functions, which are the Apos¬ 
tolic functions, and they could hardly come to Apostles from 
above, and to others from below. 

The Third proposition—a body composed of officers and mem¬ 
bers does not square with the Congregational actual theory, which 
in fact does not admit of the Special Functions, but there was 
no need to mar the logical idea by stating the actual at that time: 
It were logical to say the bodies could contain both members and 
officers as well as officers alone, but the Congregationalists contend 
for no bodies above the congregation, and that cuts off Appeal at 
once. Furthermore, Ordination changes its nature from being the 
conferring of an office (and the grace for its exercise) to being 
an invocation of blessing to one already called and appointed, so 
that as a function it is very little. 

Only Rule over Elders is left, and that is no longer a func¬ 
tion; but the inherent power residing in the congregation. The 
Congregational system asserts the absolute autonomy of each con¬ 
gregation; and absolute equality of each member. The principle 
of Association alone binds the congregations together in higher 
organization, and when once the Apostles were gone, there is no 
place for the general functions to lodge. What is left of them 
rests in the congregation, but how much is left? Ordination, not 
as a “Grift,” but as a ratification; Appeal, in so far as allowed by 
conditions in which the first and last courts are identical and 
strange to say, Rule over Elders in the most absolute degree 

The congregational position is taken from Scripture as fol¬ 
lows: The Apostles die; no men are put in their place; no 
Presbyteries or larger bodies are put in their place; therefore noth¬ 
ing but the congregations are left. These are seen in Scripture 
to be subject only to Apostles, so that with the Apostles dead, they 
are independent of all outside control. The Elders are “placed 
before” or given “oversight” only in the sense of leaders, and are 
therefore to be treated as any other member of the flock so far as 
control of the flock over them is concerned. 


190 


Analytics of Church Government 


From this it is seen, that, unless one is prepared to prove the 
position as regards the Papal, Episcopal, or Presbyterian System, 
and show that something is left after the Apostles die, the argu¬ 
ment goes by default. Each antagonist can be cheered on to 
victory and crowned, in so far as he demolishes the others, and 
when all are slain, the spoils are gathered in by the watchers. 
Each of the others has something positive to prove but this sys¬ 
tem remains just by the death of the rest. It is a residuum. 

But at last, at least in this one particular, all the rest are 
found in solid array, and absolute agreement in line of battle 
against their sole and only antagonist, who is in this instance 
compelled to prove the positive. The whole world has taken the 
words, episcopos, hegoumenos, proistamenos, kubernetes and 
poimen, as words expressing official authority. They are used 
in St. Paul’s address to the Elders of Ephesus and Epistle to the 
Thessalonians, in his advice to Timothy, and in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, and imply a very great deal. There are also words like 
peithesthe, and hupekeite . It is the Congregationalist who 
would strip them of their usual official sense. 

Thus the question is: Are the Elders over the Congregation, 
or the Congregation over the Elders? Both of course can not 
stand unless the Rule in one instance is reduced to a mere nothing, 
while in the other magnified into strenuosity. In fact the Con¬ 
gregational system can not help admitting some official force to 
the words above, but makes it extremely slight, while the authority 
of the Congregation is of the most absolute sort possible, knowing 
no laws but those of its own recognition, and no appeal whatsoever. 

Thus we have, laid bare, the point in this system for discus¬ 
sion from Scripture along the line of Special Functions. Did the 
Apostles give the Congregations Rule over Elders? And the issue 
is to be determined by the reinforcements which each side can 
bring to the Greek works of the class of episcopos, and proista¬ 
menos , etc. 

It is enough to say, at present, that the location of the Special 
Functions in the Congregation practically destroys them, and not 
only these, the Apostolic Functions, but also the authority of 
Elders as well. 

The seat of Consent is made the seat of authority also, and 


Discussion of the Special Order 


191 


what was at first made so distinct by the Lord, has become con¬ 
fused in a generation; and lines that it was so necessary should be 
kept distinct, have been obliterated. The Master gave the Apostles 
the authority (see St. Paul’s boasting) to sustain the responsibili¬ 
ties of Teaching, Preaching, Ministration, Rule and Care of Souls. 
The Congregational theory leaves the burden and takes away the 
authority. 

It is claimed that in those few years all the authority with 
which the Ministry among men started, was lost by it, and given 
to the very Congregations at first subject to it. We can hold no 
brief for that kind of thing. Even if Apostles died, the Ministry 
did not, and the Apostles’ death did not deprive the Ministry of its 
all in all. We can not afford to find the Special and General 
Functions all in the self same grave—Consent usurper of all 
Authority. 


CHAPTER V 


Discussion of tbe Biblical System in Eitenso 

The discussion of the subject of the last chapter, ought now 
for the sake of continuity be carried into the succeeding age, so as 
to see by the light of the facts of that age, whether conclusions 
which we have tentatively reached, would meet with corroboration 
or contradictions, but, on the other hand, something will be gained 
by a more comprehensive view of the conditions during the Scrip¬ 
tural age than we have yet had. We will therefore linger awhile 
longer in that age, and afterwards view the facts of the next. 

There are so many different kinds of workers mentioned 
in Scripture, and so many interlacings of the different workers, 
that we want to get a clear view of the whole system as it was 
in actual operation just as nearly as we can through the medium 
of the partial glimpses which are given us now and then. Then 
there are also one or two matters that need close discussion. 

The Twelve Apostles had, as we have seen, every function 
and power in all the spheres of religious work, and a commission 
to go into all the world. Of course it is presumable that they 
reasonably did so, but, as far as we can trace their work, we find 
them executing their commission in a different way from what we 
would expect. For years, they remain in Jerusalem, and the first 
work in other places, is done by others. At last we find St. Peter 
“passing throughout all quarters/’ but quarters where the Church 
existed. 

We know specifically that Christianity was established in 
Samaria, Antioch, Damascus, and Rome before any man of possi- 
bly Apostolic rank reached that far; and we ought also to add in 
all probability Tarsus and Alexandria. The account of the 
Apostles remaining while others were scattered abroad bearing the 
Gospel, and their going to Samaria after Philip had gotten things 
in readiness, and this passing of St. Peter throughout all quarters, 
gives us an insight into the fact which we might as well have sus¬ 
pected, that the ordering of all things—the care of all the 
Churches, was the great burden of the office, which precluded the 


Discussion of the Biblical System in Extenso 193 

active dashing into unconverted parts for first planting. If they 
did not do it at first, did they afterwards do this kind of work? 
Later the work of caring for and confirming the Churches was still 
more insistent, and we expressly read how St. Peter when driven 
from Jerusalem took up his "abode’’ at Ceasarea. St. Paul’s work 
was at first of the dashing kind, but soon he too was by the force 
of needs, held down to the "Care of all the Churches” in a way 
that seemed to irk his great spirit. But a true view of St. Paul 
will not add him to the Twelve, but make him the first and great¬ 
est of a large number who were given the work of an Apostle, just 
as the Seventy had been given work similar to that of the Twelve, 
in the Lord’s lifetime. He was given it by the Lord directly, and 
so too, it is thought, was James the Just. 

St. Paul is the first of all these men of whom we read, and 
he is sent out to Tarsus. Then Barnabas is sent to Antioch, and 
next we read of James at Jerusalem in position of authority, 
while St. Peter goes to Caesarea, and presumably all the Apostles 
are scattered. James, of the lineage of David, is safer from the 
Sanhedrim and Herod than all the rest, and can remain. Here we 
have a brief view of a settled Apostolate if only temporarily so, 
with St. Peter at Caesarea, St. James at Jerusalem, St. Paul at 
Tarsus, (and then Antioch) and St. Barnabas at Antioch, all at 
one and the same time. But at once comes the sentence of God 
that changes this, and sends St. Paul and St. Barnabas on their 
journey to many lands to be the first planters of many Churches. 

The men who at Corinth call themselves "Apostles of Christ” 
and whom St. Paul calls "false Apostles” because of their false 
teaching, now go forth. In a little while Silas and Mark are 
joined with St. Paul and St. Barnabas, in the larger work. Later, 
a large number are seen. And in them all we see just what we 
have before seen about the Twelve, that planting is a work that is 
impeded so largely by the "Care of all the Churches” that one 
after another they succumb, and are found "setting in order the 
things which are lacking.” This view is borne out by what we 
know of St. John’s life afterwards, and the tradition concerning 
St. Philip and St. Andrew that rests on good testimony. 

The Apostolic men could only in rare instances be pioneers, 
so great was the need of supervisors and confirmers of the work. 


194 Analytics of Church Government 

Yet of course the commission to “go” is not violated. If we 
first caught at the idea of their being great travelers, we soon find 
that the way they adopted of sending men, and then coming them¬ 
selves to order all things, was much better. St. Paul the seem¬ 
ing exception, is for all the seeming to the contrary, one who 
dwells in turn at Tarsus, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome for 
years at a time; and his second and third jou' ^eys are over the 
same ground, it being of the second journey that we find the 
fully expressed motive given in the phrases “Let us go again and 
visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word, 
and see how they do,” and “He went through Syria and Celicia, 
confirming the Churches.” There is no effort to show by any ac¬ 
cent laid on this phase of apostolic work that crystalization took 
place as early as these times; but only that the tendency of the 
work was to exalt care of the work planted at the expense of new 
undertakings in person. The great powers of their office were 
called fully into play. Ministration, Teaching, Rule of affairs and 
Care of Souls demanded in the end, even as fully as Preaching, the 
time of these chief officers. When Jerusalem was the field, they 
had given up tables, because of prayer and the word; and after¬ 
wards, when the Care of all the Churches came upon them daily, 
these wise men knew how to multiply their voices for their “dea- 
conship of the Word.” So, too, they stretched their hands, for the 
setting in order of Churches and the appointment of underworkers. 

Thus then we conceive the Twelve and their work. They were 
not pioneers so much as the rulers and Orderers of the work. And 
of St. Paul and the others of apostolic degree and work, we would 
say, they were at first pioneers, but soon compelled to Care for the 
Churches as the principal part of their labors. 

As to the general divisions of the workers, there were 
divisions along the line of spheres, i. e., into general and local 
workers; along the line of hinds , i. e., into Apostles, Prophets, 
Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers Rulers, Helps, and Govern¬ 
ments; along the line of degrees or orders, i. e., into Apostles, 
Elders, and Deacons. 

The division into local and general workers, was one of the 
most natural in the world. It sprang out of the absolute necessity 
for the constant training and drilling of each congregation, and 


Discussion of the Biblical System in Extenso 195 


the continual teaching, preaching, offering and worshipping needful 
therefor, while there still existed work for the Church to do, which 
those tied down could not attempt to perform. The planting of 
new Churches, and the nursing of these, in very distant places, may 
be taken as the patent proof. 

Scripturally, we see Silas and Timothy left in Macedonia; 
Titus and two others, going to Corinth'; Titus left in Crete, and 
“departed into Dalmatia;” Barnabas and Mark, sailing to Cyprus; 
all these and many more, to say nothing of St. Paul, evidently en¬ 
gaged in a work of so general a character that we cannot in any 
way accommodate it to the idea that it was done by those who 
were usually local workers. 

It is hard to imagine any time that might come without 
bringing the need of a division of the work between the general 
and local workers, each equipped with powers suited to his sphere 
of work. In the Biblical times we see plainly the different classes. 

Dn the other hand, we would have known nothing of the 
division of the workers into kinds unless Scripture had informed 
us, and we must get the Scriptural enumeration of these different 
kinds squarely before us. Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, 
Pastors, Teachers, Eulers, Helps and Governments seem to fulfil 
the list. Tongues, Healings, Miracles, there were, but these Char- 
isms hardly give us room for distinction into kinds. Still they 
can be added. If it should be thought that Prophecy should be 
included among the Charisms, we will see afterwards why there 
is distinct reason for the above separation. 

As to Apostles. The word is general, meaning messenger, 
but in Scripture becomes official and means Messengers of Christ. 
That it ever means Messengers of men any more after acquiring 
the official sense, may well be doubted. We have seen two in¬ 
stances where it plainly can revert, and is claimed by some to 
do so; but again, it need not be so taken. After becoming of¬ 
ficial, there seems to be a narrower, and a larger sense. The 
Great Apostles, who were the first Twelve, and then also St. 
Matthias, St. Paul and St. James the Just, are the Apostles in 
the narrower sense. In the larger, we would include as among the 
Messengers of Ohrisrt, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Luke, 
Mark, Epaphroditus, and all that number of men like Gaius 


196 


Analytics of Church Government 


Aristarchus, Sopater whom we see engaged in the larger work, re¬ 
quiring great powers in order to make successful effort. Also, 
as we have seen, those men called “false apostles” by St. Paul 
and John are of this class. The work was varied, and embraced all 
kinds. The Evangelists may have been limited to one kind of 
work, but the term Apostle in this larger sense may be taken to in¬ 
dicate administrative work as well as Preaching, or Ministration. 
If the workers are divided, as we supposed, into local and general, 
the Apostles would belong to the latter class necessarily. 

As to Evangelists. The need of general Preachers to spread 
the Gospel was great, and there was no reason why there should 
not be men who could go about with no other work, than 
that of first attracting men to the Truth. Preaching and Ad¬ 
ministration call for different natures, when each are at their best. 
Men mighty in the Scriptures and of great fluency could be sent 
forth with just the one work of “Crying in the Wilderness.” 
There could well be distinctions of grades between men given this 
kind of work, because they need not all press into remote regions. 
Sections of Cities even could afford field for Evangelistic work, 
while yet again Evangelists could go ahead of the more administra¬ 
tive apostolical workers. We have no light on the functions of 
office belonging to the Evangelists. Timothy, a man of apostolic 
function, was told to “do the work of an Evangelist” and again, 
Philip is called an Evangelist, but of his rank, we know very 
little. We can easily suppose however, that Evangelists could be 
given either of the two higher grades of office, in respect to the 
Ministerial functions, and so be either men endowed with the 
Special Functions like the Apostolic men, or only possessed of 
those of the Elders. 

As to Prophets. We must remember that by the action of 
God on the day of Pentecost, the old order of Prophets was once 
more placed in evidence before men. Later, the Prophetical 
powers would settle into the form more akin to teaching, and be 
absorbed into the general functions of the Christian ministry, but 
at the first there was a restoration of Prophets in fullest mani¬ 
festation of their anciently asserted claims. Now the Prophets' 
claim to attention always by the very nature of things, rested on 
the truth of his message. If a man was really sent from God, or 


Discussion of the Biblical System in Extenso 197 


had a message from God, that ended all discussion of right. So in 
Apostolic times, it was enough in justification of Ananias, that 
God told him to go to St. Paul, who was praying. 

There were in these days many men and women, who prophe¬ 
sied, and the only way of keeping them straight, was to “prove the 
Spirit, whether they are of God;” for many false Prophets are 
gone out into the world. ” Thus the Prophet had all things in 
his hands. He might be able to allege for any act God’s authority: 
Whether he was an officer or a layman, it matters not. The old 
order of Prophets had not been involved in the grades that the 
Priesthood knew. A layman empowered of God, could do what 
God bid him, but unless so told, he could do nothing. As a kind 
of worker then in Scriptural days the Prophet was capable of 
having any office, but in case of special message, of performing any 
functions whether proper to Ms usual grade or not. Ananias 
seems to have been a layman: The Prophets and Teachers at 
Antioch Elders and Apostles. Silas was, as we know, a prophet, 
and also, apparently, an apostle. The laying on of hands which 
we attribute to Ananias and to the Prophets and teachers at 
Antioch doubtless proceeded not from their grade of office, but 
their prophetical authorization. 

And while we read of Timothy that the “gift” was given 
him by prophecy we also read of Silas, who was with St. Paul at 
the time, that he was a Prophet (Acts XV. 32). Evidently the 
Prophet could range into any field provided he could claim God’s 
word for his act, and, if that be the case, we need not wonder at 
the rank given him by St. Paul, where he says “first Apostles, 
secondly prophets.” He was therefore general or local, and of no 
grade, or all grades—independent of grade, and his kind of work 
was according to his heavenly authority for anything he did. 

When the special message ceased however, and prophecy be¬ 
came exposition and preaching, the freedom of the Prophet to 
range, also ceased, and his grade became fixed by his other powers 
of ministry. 

Looking at these three kinds of general workers, we see that 
all of them must necessarily reach up somewhat into the general 
field, and at times need high powers. The Prophet need be given 
none, but could rely on the heavenly message. The Evangelist 


198 Analytics of Church Government 

might be able to found a Church as well as preach, and could 
according to his personality be entrusted with high powers, but his 
commission (unless also a Prophet) would come from the earthly 
bestowers of it. The Apostle was a man engaged in work that 
expressly demanded authority, along many lines and in very high 
degree. As to Pastors, Teachers, and Rulers, the Scripture identi¬ 
fies all these with Elders, and shows they were local officers; and 
the only question is as to whether the specific kinds of work in¬ 
volved in the functions of these officers fell, all of them together, 
on every Elder, or whether they could be parcelled out, so that 
several or only one could be possessed by the same individual. We 
must add the functions of Ministration and Preaching to those 
of Rule, Teaching, and Care of Souls, which are involved in the 
names above given. 

The conditions of a City like Ephesus would indicate large 
opportunity for a division of work into various kinds, and the 
pecuniary condition of converts to Christianity does not allow us 
to think of all the Elders giving themselves all the time to their 
religious work. Those that labored in the “word and doctrine’ ’ 
must have had great drafts on their time, and were worthy doubt¬ 
less of “double honor” in the way of remuneration; even if the 
Greek of the famous text does not mean that kind of “honor.” 
The inherent probabilities are strongly for the view that the 
Elders took work of various kinds and in varying degrees. To 
thread our way however with any certainty through the intrica¬ 
cies of the situation to some definite system of division of labor, 
will need more light than we have. If we recall that Elders were 
given functions of office in the lines of Preaching, Teaching, 
Ministration, Rule and Care of Souls, and then we turn to the 
various names given them besides that of Elder, viz: Ministers, 
Stewards, Pilots, Overseers, and “Those placed before,” we will 
see that our sign posts appear confusing. 

The Scriptures indeed speak of “Elders that Rule well” and 
go on to say “Especially those who labor in the Word and 
doctrine/’ which text helps us to see not only the fact of a 
division of labor, but one of the lines along which the division 
could run. This, however, is all that is revealed, and yet there 
could well be more. 


Discussion of the Biblical System in Extenso 199 


Rule is only one of the functions. The word too is proestotes 
which leans to rule over affairs rather than “Care of souls” or 
Discipline and Shepherding. We would, in a City like Ephesus, 
easily see some, taking the frequent services of worship; others, 
the round of pastoral visits; others the constant instruction of 
converts; others, the control of affairs, and others yet again, the 
growing and aggressive preaching to the heathen. 

Just the distinction between preaching to regular Congrega¬ 
tions for edification and exposition, and that done to gain con¬ 
verts, gives us a view of how the work could be divided, and with 
a ministry necessarily unable to devote all its time to the work, 
(we know how St. Paul labored at tent making in Ephesus), we 
feel sure it must have been in some such way. 

But, now, though the work could be divided, yet it could 
hardly be that the functions of the office would not belong to all. 
It is natural to understand that all Elders were possessed of all 
functions of office, but labored chiefly in some part of the great 
work. All could stand and break the bread in Christ’s stead; all 
could baptize; preach according to their knowledge; pay pastoral 
visits, and if need be exercise discipline and finally take part in 
the general affairs, and in control of them; but all did not try to 
do all these things equally. There is no use to suppose any thing 
like an atrophy of their other powers because engaging chiefly in 
the exercise of one. Especially must we think that the side of 
Ministration would be dear to each one, since the right to break, 
the bread is, like the right to Preach, ever dear to every one 
allowed the privilege. It would be pushing matters very far and 
very needlessly to think that the text which speaks of those “labor- 
ing in word and doctrine” implied that functions in other 
directions were abandoned, or that the Elders who “ruled well” 
could not teach and preach if they wished. It is their work in the 
office, not the office itself that is alluded to. And how greatly be¬ 
side the mark would be the inference that because in the great 
crowded City of Ephesus there was a division of labor, it must be 
so ever and always and everywhere just that way in the Church 
of God. 

The division of labor is caused by the need for division. 
When circumstances should indicate the need that each function 


200 


Analytics of Church Government 


should be exercised by, as well as vest in each possessor, the power 
to respond would be there, and the existence of the function is the 
best reason for its exercise. 

Therefore we must conclude, that since all Elders were Preach¬ 
ers, Teachers, Leaders, Pilots, Ministers, Overseers, and Rulers, 
none of these gifts should be allowed to rust, even though circum¬ 
stances compelled inequalities at times and in certain places. 

As to Helps. It would have been strange if alone of great 
religions possessing a Ministry, the Christian System had omitted 
the assisting order. There is not as much need of Helps in the 
rites and ceremonies, but far more in the active work and multi¬ 
plication of alms, etc. Helps must of course refer to the Deacons. 

And finally there remains to be considered the term Govern¬ 
ments. The Greek is kuberneseis , or Guidings, Pilotings. It is 
not likely that the reference is to Rulers of the grade of Elders, 
but to those like Aquilla and Priscilla who did so much for Ap- 
pollos, and to the trainers of Children and converts, who could 
well be called Guides. 

In the matter of Grades or Orders, there was manifest need 
for such a division, and the only question likely to arise, would 
be as to the lines along which the division should fall. The need 
existed, because, unless there was to be no line between the local 
and the general workers, and between the local workers and those 
who should assist them, and unless the Elders were to be under no 
authority, or only that of bodies of which they themselves were 
members, there must be a grade above them. 

But let us see the whole situation: 

Here were a large number of Christians from all walks of life, 
and especially the working classes. It must be a consequence of 
conditions that most of them must be simple members unable to 
engage in the “work of the ministry.” But others would be fitted 
by knowledge, possession of time, dignity of character, for some 
work. f They could labor either in a region just between the wor¬ 
shipper and the Minister, or in a region of true Ministry which 
bordered on work of secular character, i. e., secular in kind (the 
service of tables), but consecrated in end and purpose. They could 


Discussion of the Biblical System in Extenso 201 


rise to a work religiously official, assisting in the Public worship, 
baptizing, and preaching even, yet not reaching up into the region 
of authority. Finally there would be those who could give them¬ 
selves to the work as their calling in life. These would be put 
over the work, or flock (one would follow from the other), and 
be separated from those below by just that very authority. How 
high the work of the assistant might rise, would not be the ques¬ 
tion. It is this matter of authority that marks the great distinc¬ 
tion. But that is the mark of an office. The usual work of 
preaching, Teaching, Pastoral work and Ministering, would make 
up part of their labor according to fitness and opportunity for 
its many branches, but the very possession of authority over 
things and men, would make other lines of work. 

So far then, we have two grades of work. We can if we wish, 
regard the lower grade as not exceeding the layman in authority, 
but only in work, but if his work be of a kind, that requires au¬ 
thority, then, that authority will make a distinction of grade. 
If his work belong to an office, or should need for it a setting 
apart, it would be idle to deny the existence of authority and 
grades. At the same time, if the authority of the full grade of 
workers be over this class of workers, as well as the people in 
general, then the distinction of grade is complete. 

Grades might exist along the line of kinds of work, but are 
rather seen along distinction in authority. The Apostles while 
equal inter se in grade, had the same lines of work. In their case 
there was no making one a preacher, and another a ruler or pastor, 
so with the Elders that the Apostles established, the line flowed 
not into the separation of Preachers, and Ministers, but after the 
combination of Preaching, Teaching, Ministering, Ruling, and 
Care of Souls into one whole, it was drawn around it to hedge it 
from those under their authority in all those kinds of work. 

But, since all the authority these men had was entirely local 
as far as we have seen, it is quite possible for a grade to exist 
above them. If there existed general workers, even though the 
lines of their work must still be Preaching, Teaching, Ruling, and 
Care of Souls, yet there is room for the distinction of grade. The 
matter of rule over the Elders, of Appellate jurisdiction, and of 


202 


Analytics of Church Government 


Ordination of Elders, still allows a distinction of grade to come 
in. 

Now, it is the sight of the general workers, and of the pos¬ 
session of some of them, of these higher lines of work, that makes 
us see that there were higher functions as well, and therefore a 
higher grade of office. 

The matter of the number of ordinations given to any one 
officer, now demands attention. Was there a separate ordination 
for each of two or three grades, or was there only one for general 
entrance into the Ministry, and then the rest left to some simple 
mode of designation ? Or, yet again, was there only one Ordina¬ 
tion, but that one a particular one to an office held for life, there 
being no system of progression? The first is the modern custom 
(dating from early times however) with those having three or¬ 
ders in the Ministry, and also with those holding to two. For the 
believers in those orders, ordain to Diaconate, and then raise the 
Deacon to the other orders, on occasion, by fresh ordination; and 
the believers in two orders, should a Deacon (whose Ministry is 
by them regarded as quite separate in kind rather than in degree) 
desire to go into the higher work, admit him to that by a fresh 
ordination. There is, however, this further difference, that with 
the one the Diaconate, whatever the early custom might have 
been, is regarded as the primary step in a series, while with the ad¬ 
vocates of two orders, it is an office apart and not expected to fur¬ 
nish its holders a door into the regular grade of the Ministry. 
The second is a possible and forensic, rather than an actual theory. 
It plays no part in the differences concerning Deacons, but it can 
in modified form, well play a part in the question as to presby¬ 
ters becoming Bishops, without further ordination. The third 
and last, as we shall later see, has the apparent support of Scrip¬ 
ture. 

Few subjects are left so much to inference as the matter of 
Ordination. We can not say when the Apostles were ordained, 
nor Matthias, nor St. Paul, nor Barnabas, nor James the Just. 
No man whose name is given is mentioned in connection with 
official ordination except Timothy and the Seven. At the same 
time, we see that large numbers of Elders were Ordained and some 
men expressly had the power to Ordain as one of their powers of 


i 


Discussion of the Biblical System in Extenso 203 

Ministry. Timothy may be taken as an instance of one Ordained 
twice; but only because it is said in one place “with the laying 
on of the hands of the Presbytery” and in another “By the lay¬ 
ing on of my hands” and it is well known that we have no way of 
either identifying or separating these instances. The whole sub¬ 
ject of Ordination rests upon the argument that among the Jews, 
there was a setting apart, for every sacred and semi-sacred office, 
and that we have so many instances given in the Scriptures of 
Ordination, that, evidently the same atmosphere existed in the 
Christian as well as in the Jewish Church. Something, to indi¬ 
cate not only that the man gave himself to God, but that God gave 
the man Authority and Grace for the work, was of almost uni¬ 
versal custom in Civilized religions of ancient times—something 
to guard the man’s office as given from above as well as by men. 
The Priest even of Ptah, or of Shamash, must stand on the merits 
of the God, and the whole trend of the Scriptures is not away 
from, but in the direction of this natural and judicious line. Al¬ 
most any sacred rite at the time of appointment would convey 
this idea, but the old Patriarchal and Mosaic rite of laying on of 
hands, is the one preserved to our view in the Bible as that of 
the Apostolic choice. And the same reason that would cause it 
to be used at all would cause it to be done for every office received. 

As regards Scripture terms for Ordination, it does not matter 
that different Greek words are used to designate the giving of 
office to different ones in the Scripture, for no one can doubt that 
there was a religious bestowal as well as a matter of fact appoint¬ 
ment. Until the Greek language developed official terms, only 
words of general meaning would be available. Greek civilization 
and government were highly artificial, and therefore all its terms 
are words that have been built up, general ideas particularized and 
applied. But the Greek is too delicate a conveyor of meaning 
not to enable the writers of Scripture to give us an insight from 
several standpoints. Instead of quibbling about this word and 
that, we should rather be glad that those passages which clearly 
indicate a sacred making of a Minister, should approach the mat¬ 
ter from every side, from “election” to “placing the hands upon.” 

There are some who claim that when at Lystra, on the first 
journey , St. Paul and Barnabas “ordained Elders for them,” 


204 


Analytics of Church Government 


they superintended an election, because the word is “cheirotoneo,” 
yet it is at Lystra they say also, that on the second journey, the 
Presbytery ordained Timothy because the word is epithesis ton 
cheiron, but every one knows the danger of taking words that 
have not settled to the technical and then balancing between 
the literal and technical ideas. The difficulty is, that the Hebrew 
rite had to be indicated in the Greek language. A really note¬ 
worthy point is, that in the early days, when the Seven were 
appointed, the language is epiihekan tas cheiras, and when St. 
Paul is about to die, he uses to Timothy concerning his Ordina¬ 
tion, the same Greek words, which shows how, from first to last, 
appointment was by laying on of hands. 

Of course, if the man in general work was only an Elder 
taken and deputized, or if, let us say, the Bishop of later times 
was only the President of the Presbytery, a second Ordination 
would not be inferred, but if there was a distinct office given, 
then the general custom in the matter of Ordination would have 
its force. That beyond the passages concerning Timothy there 
is any mention of a second Ordination cannot be claimed. In 
fact, if we take Scripture and search, we find no mention of any 
one at all promoted to higher work. Timothy is never seen in 
the work of an Elder—a local work. Unless it be Philip, who 
is seen ordained as one of the Seven, and is afterwards called “the 
Evangelist,” and we can move amid these intricacies with asser¬ 
tions, there is no one of all the Biblical characters whom we 
see promoted in work or office. To be sure, there is the text 
about Deacons “purchasing to themselves a good degree,” but 
it is the barest kind of inference that that means they could rise 
to the Eldership. The Elders on the other hand are always 
Elders, and the general workers, men of general responsibilities. 
Possibly Barnabas, before he was sent to Antioch, was one thing, 
and then became another, but if we come to surmises, we have 
the old tradition as to Barnabas being one of the Seventy, who 
could always hark back to the Lord’s appointment, to general 
work. 

Certainly the Elders are never seen emerging out of the 
local into the general work, nor the man of general sphere falling 
back upon the local work of an Elder. We see not even a trace 


Discussion of the Biblical System in Extenso 205 


of any system of passage from one grade of work to another. 
What we are compelled to conclude is, that in Biblical time 3 , 
men were selected for one particular office in which they re¬ 
mained always, and that this was the rule. Thai exceptions could 
occur would only be reasonable, and that even though not men¬ 
tioned yet, they nevertheless did occur, would be only too natural. 
But, also, we must believe that each office was given with Ordi¬ 
nation whenever it was given. In the case of Timothy, which at 
once rises to the mind, this line of vision would leave us de¬ 
bating between two Ordinations (with his work as Elder entirely 
left out of sight) or, of only one, as on the surface would appear 
most probable, with the Apostle Paul, the Prophet Silas, and 
the Presbyters of Lystra (Canon Gore thinks of Ephesus) as 
his ordainers to an office which we have considered to be the 
Apostolate. 

It is to be noted that the repeated ordination of a man, 
through the three grades of Diaconate, Priesthood, and Episco¬ 
pate, as seen in the present day, comes from the custom of ele¬ 
vating the same man through the three grades. The latter, as 
we have seen, was probably not the Scriptural custom, but if the 
same man had been promoted to distinct offices, we can not doubt 
but that it could have been by the usual religious rite each time. 
It was because the w r ork of a man was not changed, that we fail 
to find the traces of more than one ordination. 

The historical position on this matter remains to be dis¬ 
cussed in another place. But if we seem shut off from holding 
to the idea of several ordinations, we also fail to find an in¬ 
stance of any confessed Elder engaging in general work ; so, that, 
if in very truth this general work existed, it was done by men 
who were not Elders, but something else. This would mean that 
just as there was an ordination to the “Deaconship of tables* ’ 
and an ordination to Eldership, so there was one to General 
work. 

However, supposing only one ordination to be the showing 
of Scripture, and that the Scriptural Elder does not take up 
general work, there can yet be the theory that while there is a 
parity of office, yet there is also a difference in work—all being 
equal in order or grade, but some, used for local, and some for 


206 


Analytics of Church Government 


general work. Under such a theory every man ordained to the 
Preaching and Teaching ministry, would be given all the pow¬ 
ers of ministry, but some might be kept latent, only to be de¬ 
veloped under certain circumstances, such as deputyship (in 
Scriptural times) and Presidency, (in times a little later). 

Now, of course, the Presbyterian theory would not allow this. 
For the President to take the powers of a Timothy, would be 
usurpation of powers belonging to all, and only to be exercised 
by the Presbytery, or body of Presbyters—“Presbyteri in Con- 
sessu/’ or by a body of their creation in conjunction with other 
Presbyteries—a “Synod,” whose pattern in Scripture is claimed 
to be the Jerusalem Council. This is, in fact, the virtual theory 
of those who see no successors of the Apostles, but do see a real 
and right Episcopacy rising out of the Presidency of the early 
Presbyteries. This theory indeed may preserve the principle of 
authority from above, but cares little for that of three orders. 
Furthermore, just by subtle processes of exalting election and 
depressing ordination, it can weaken to the point of destruction, 
the principle of authority from above. That, of course, is the 
great principle. Once that is secure, the precise arrangements 
made for its exercise matter but little. 

The contention, however, for three orders is based, not upon 
the sight of three ordinations, but upon the facts of the arrange¬ 
ments actually made and exhibited in Scripture; upon the nat¬ 
uralness of such a division of power as well as of work; and 
upon the historic continuity of such a plan with all the religions 
of the ancient civilizations. 

Upon the foundations that in the course of this book have 
been laid along the last two lines, rest the facts of Scripture, 
made perfectly patent by their full exhibition in the last few 
chapters. If the Special Functions were given, not for latent, 
but for dynamic possession; and given not to all, but to special 
ones, then there must be three orders. And again, while the 
idea of latent powers can agree very well with a thedry of 
authority from the people, or a body that stands for the people, 
yet with the idea of authority from above, it seems an utter in¬ 
congruity. Just think of it—given to so many, and exercised 


Discussion of the Biblical System in Extenso 207 

by so few, i. e., given uselessly in the great majority of cases. 
The talent tied in a napkin, and the gift not to be stirred up, 
is hardly the plan of the Divine Mind. 

Although so much has been said about Councils, a full fair 
look at the distinctions concerning them, will at this point, help 
to a conception of the whole Biblical system. 

A General can hold a Council of War without impairing his 
supreme command at all, and so too, can a President consult 
his Cabinet. Then a number of Generals can consult together, 
and be guided by the opinion that prevails, without that Coun¬ 
cil becoming an institution with power to take command out of 
the hands of the Generals, and exercise it in its own way. So 
too can any set of officials meet to settle matters of perplexity, 
or of common interest. But when once a Council on any kind 
is formed, the weight of a majority opinion is so great that it 
becomes a kind of natural process for the Council to acquire 
power over its component members, even though the origin of 
the Council may not have been rested on any such principle. 
On the other hand, however, there is a different type of Council 
best typified by the ordinary legislature. In these, the Council 
has powers of its own. There may be degrees too, in these. In 
a board of -directors, for instance, the control of the board is 
based on the right of the Directors, but the action of the board, 
as a board, is necessary for legality, and its officers and deputies 
have all the power that the board may give, and transcend the 
individual director entirely. In a legislature, however, it is the 
body that has the power, and the members of it acquire all they 
have, through being members of the body, and only when in action 
within the body. 

These two lines of divergence begin from the two ideas of 
authority from above, and authority from below. With inde¬ 
pendent authority from above vesting in the members, the idea of 
Council for Counsel holds; with Divine authority vesting in the 
Council, on the other hand, the Council represents the source 
of the authority of the members, and so has more power as a 
whole, than any member or part. We have, therefore, clear 
lines for comparison, when we look int othe real and al¬ 
leged Councils of Scripture. Now everything in the account 


208 


Analytics of Church Government 


of the Jerusalem Council agrees with the idea that it was a 
Council for Counsel, and we know that the authority of the Apos¬ 
tles was independent, so that whether we argue from the facts as 
seen in the account, or from the authority by which the Council 
gained its powers, we must rank it among the kinds of Councils 
which brings Consent to the aid of Authority, rather than the 
kinds which place Consent over Authority. As to other Councils, 
they are alleged, by some, but not seen. That a Presbytery was 
composed of Elders who derived their authority from above, as 
men admitted to share some of the powers which came from above 
to the Apostles, is ‘ prima facie 9 evidence, that they were Councils 
on the line of Councils for Counsel; and we can not get beyond the 
'prima facie ’ aspect for all the rest of the evidence is absent. 

That it was a Court of discipline like a Jewish Sanhedrim, 
or a Legislature like the Roman Senate, is far beside any line 
or word that is written. And as for descanting on the powers 
of its moderator, even though we know that James presided at 
the Jerusalem Council, and actually see and hear him, in his 
office, we are still in the dark as to the very gist of the points 
involved. 

The Biblical system then seems to be as follows. A number 
ef men of equal powers, and these the very highest possible, and 
covering all the range of religious affairs, are instrusted with every¬ 
thing in the Church. They call to their aid other workers and 
divide them into local and general workers. To the local, they 
give all their functions of office, except those of Rule over Elders, 
Appeal, and Ordination. To the General, they add these to the 
others. They also provide an order of Assistants (to the local 
workers presumably). In the meantime, God himself has raised 
up special Prophets, who by the force of their claim to inspira¬ 
tion speak and act as they are moved, generally in harmony with, 
but sometimes outside of the regular scheme. These are tempo¬ 
rary, and can last only as long as inspiration, not, therefore, be¬ 
coming a part of the regular system. Natural gifts and variety 
of opportunities cause other lines of demarkation among the 
workers. These, unlike the Prophets, are within the limitations 
of the three orders, i. e., depend on their order for their authority 
in their particular work. The whole field of work is thus cov- 


Discussion of the Biblical System in Extenso 209 

ered by Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers, 
Kulers, Helps, and Governments, and regularity and effectiveness 
ensued by the three grades or orders into which all these varie¬ 
ties are grouped according to the measure of their authority. 

By thus disposing the workers, and by providing for Councils 
among the officers (and between the officers and people also by 
inference) and distinctly recognizing the rights of the people, 
the system becomes rounded into a form which recognizes and 
balances the claims of Monarchial, Conciliar, and Popular gov¬ 
ernment, with wonderful nicety of judgment. 

Election of the officers by the people, satisfies Consent. Or¬ 
dination with its Gift dignifies Authority. The passing of the 
Prophets can work no harm to the system. When the Great 
Apostles die, their functions of office remain vested in others. 

Selecting the pervading principles for plain exposure, we 
would arrange them as. Authority, Counsel, Consent, Order, 
Thoroughness, Perpetuity. Afterwards, we 'shall see how we 
must add, Elasticity. 

The Apostles were certainly inspired builders upon the won¬ 
derful foundations. 


CHAPTER VI 


©be Special ©rber in Mistor? 

We have seen that the Great Apostles possessed the Special 
Functions which were adapted to the General work in which they 
were engaged, as distinguished from the local work of the Pres¬ 
byters; and then, concluding from the nature of these Special 
Functions, and the perennial need of them, that they could not 
be allowed to die with the Twelve, we began the discussion as to 
the location of these Special Functions, after the passing of the 
Apostles. Going to Scripture, we discussed the three positions, 
viz: 1st, the delivery of them to a Special order of men, 2nd, to 
a body of officers, 3rd, to a body composed of officers and mem¬ 
bers. 

It is now necessary to carry the same question into the region 
of History, so as to bring to bear whatever force there may be 
from corroboration or contradiction of former approximate con¬ 
clusions. 

In the first century of our era, we have only two writings 
that bear upon the subject of Church Polity, viz: The Didache, 
and the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In the early 
part of the next century, we have two others, which practically 
belonging to the same period, may be grouped with the two first. 
These are, the set of seven Epistles of Ignatius and the Epistle 
of Polycarp to the Philippians. At some interval comes Hermas, 
Ireneaus, and the ever broadening stream of Christian writers. 

The Epistle of Clement may have been written as early as 
the year 68, after the persecution of Nero, but certainly before 
the year 100. The Didache, is by some, put as early as the year 
80, and it too must at least have been written within the limit 
of the first century. Both documents were known early, and the 
text reasonably certain. 

We will take the Didache first. 

It gives a picture of the Christian Church, in some commun¬ 
ity, thought by scholars to be in an out of the way region, ao 
customed to very simple life, which picture embraces these features 


The Special Order in History 


211 


as regards polity. There are ‘‘Teachers” who travel about. There 
are also “Apostles,” and these are called “Prophets.” They, too, 
travel. These Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets, are to be tried 
and judged and received according to principles laid down. If 
proved true, they have an assured position. They are called “Your 
honored ones” and “Your high-priests.” They are to have the 
first fruits, and the Prophets can at the Communion, offer 
“Thanksgiving” untrammelled by the form prescribed to others 
for that part of the worship. They can “settle and abide,*' Then, 
also, there are “Bishops” and “Deacons,” whom the local Church 
is to elect for themselves, and of these, it is said, “for they also 
render to you the service of prophets and teachers.” It is also 
added, “Despise them not, therefore, for they are your honored 
ones, together with the Prophets and Teachers (meaning the 
ones that travel). 

As between Congregational authority, and that of the offi¬ 
cers, the lines are made tolerably plain. The officers are called 
“Apostles, Overseers, High-Priests,” and once the Teachers and 
Prophets, or Apostles, (these two are identified) are received as 
true and not false, their position is assured, and their authority 
recognized, not bestowed. On the other hand the powers of the 
local Church are distinctly those of Consent, and even then, there 
is no separation of people from officers, but the officers are mani¬ 
festly included in the charges given. 

As between a special order and an organized Presbytery, there 
is no hint of the latter at all, while there is distinctly seen, these 
Teachers and Prophets, and even Apostles coming for special work, 
and, as in the case mentioned of “the Thanksgiving, ” with high¬ 
er powers, being expressly called “High-priests.” 

Let us note the force of the implication as to false Apostles. 

In the Epistle of Clement, no higher officers than the Pres¬ 
byters are seen at Corinth, and at the same time there is no hint 
of a “Presbytery.” Nor have we any suspicion of Congregational 
Pule given us. The condition is just that of any local Church 
in Scriptural times—a Church under its local officers who are of 
course “Presbyters” and whose office is also spoken of as the 
“Episcopate” or “oversight.” There has been a “sedition against 


212 


Analytics of Church Government 


its Presbyters” by “the most steadfast and ancient Church of the 
Corinthians ’ 9 on “account of one or two persons,” and it has 
“ejected the said Presbyters from the Episcopate.” 

Now, since it is said that “the Church of the Corinthians en¬ 
gaged in sedition against its Presbyters” the idea of the Congre¬ 
gation being supreme over the Presbyters is ruled out, especially 
when Clement says, “Let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace 
with the Presbyters set over it” and “Ye who laid the founda¬ 
tions of this sedition submit yourselves to the Presbyters,” “Learn 
to be subject.” Again, the whole argument of Clement is based 
on examples of an order of Authority from above. Again, the 
officers of the Church “have been appointed by them” (the Apos¬ 
tles) or afterwards by other “distinguished men” with the con¬ 
sent of the whole Church.” So that from a number of sides, 
the idea of Congregational rule is prevented, and the last quoted 
passage directly bears on the subject of the ordination of Elders, 
and distributes the two parts of Election and Appointment in con¬ 
sonance with our view of Consent as seen all along. 

As regards the existence of a Presbytery at Corinth, we have 
not the least evidence. While Ignatius constantly uses the word 
Presbytery, Clement uses the word Presbyters, and we can tell 
nothing about the fact of a body, much less the kind. Apart, too, 
from this, the passage quoted above—“those appointed by them,” 
(i. e., the Apostles), or, afterwards, by “ other distinguished men/ 
does not naturally look towards an ordination by a body, but to¬ 
wards ordination by “eminent men” who individually possessed 
the right. 

There is evidently no one at Corinth who is above the Pres¬ 
byters, i. e.—at that time. Clement himself may possibly be 
the nearest “distinguished man,” one who in the Didache would 
be called an Apostle or Prophet. If the Epistle is written after 
Nero’s persecution, he has not yet “settled” in Rome as “abiding” 
there, after the manner mentioned in the Didache. It can possi¬ 
bly be that he writes in consequence of this office, and instead of 
saying like Polycarp, “Clement and the Presbyters with him,” he 
prefers to say “The Church of God which sojourns at Rome,” 
which had by reason of its recent persecution, become so marked 
and beloved. However, that may be, and there is nothing but 


The Special Order in History 


213 


surmise for it, there are two passages in the Epistle which leave 
room for the men called Apostles in the Didache. Who are the 
“Rulers” in Chap. XXI, and who are the “distinguished men’’ in 
Chap. XLIV? We can not think of a single Presbyter ordain¬ 
ing, and as our mind revolves the question as between a Presby¬ 
tery or body of Presbyters, and certain men of Evangelistic 
or Prophetical or Apostolical lines of work and functions of office, 
the latter seems the true idea. We can not prove it; we can not 
assert it; but it is by large odds the most plausible of the possi¬ 
ble surmises. On a theory of date as early as the year 68, the 
“distinguished men’ , would suggest a number of persons—Apollos, 
Titus, Timothy, Silas, etc., and the year 95 would not prevent the 
idea of the same persons. Inasmuch as the time for the settled 
Apostolate is late, and, then, too, variable for different places, the 
absence of the highest order of the Ministry at Corinth is a very 
small matter; if once the idea is caught that the General worker 
would not be apt to settle, until obliged by age, sickness, or the 
conditions of the Churches, we can easily see how Corinth in 
the track of all Commerce could depend on a chance coming of 
the General worker, better than any place on the Mediterranean 
Sea. 

It is to be noted that on the supposition that Clement of 
Rome was one of this class of men, (and Clement of Alexandria 
called him “Apostle,”) he had a peculiar condition to deal with. 
Absent, and held by the demands or conditions growing out of 
persecution in the Roman Church, he had not a case of Rule over 
Elders, or ordinary Appeal, or Ordination to deal with, but the 
rare one of rebellion against the officers, and the ejection of them 
from their work. St. Paul had to assert his authority very 
strongly, and here the authority of those placed over them was 
utterly upset. Of what use now would it be for Clement to deal 
sternly with them, when authority was the red rag to all their 
turbulent passions? 

His whole plan and method seem as natural to the circum¬ 
stances as could be, even if he could, like St. Paul, have gone 
to them with a rod. We have only to suppose the older system 
still partially in effect, Corinth wedded to it, and Clement, an 
Apostle (like those in the Didache), and long familiar to the Corin- 


214 Analytics of Church Government 

thians and trusted by them, but held at Rome by injuries to 
himself, or the necessity of those so broken by persecution, and 
all the difficulties that have seemed to gather about the Epistle 
vanish into thin air. But we need not do all this. It is only 
necessary to take the “distinguished men” of the Epistle to be 
the Apostles of the Didache, and the status of Corinth can be 
made plain. When we find Clement of Alexandria living and 
writing in the Second Century saying, “The Apostle Clement in 
the Epistle to the Corinthians / 1 we seem to have a position well 
taken. 

Thus now we reach the end of the first Century, and except 
for the one instance of the word “Presbytery’’ in St. Paul’s Epis¬ 
tle to Timothy we would not have the slightest hint that the 
Elders were ever formed into any kind of body much less one 
with governing powers. The words “with the laying on of the 
hands of the Presbytery” are the only source whence the idea 
can spring. We are about to come upon a large use of the 
hitherto strange term, but up to this point, there is but the one 
instance; and the fact is too noteworthy to pass over in silence. 
It is no less unexpected, however, to find that it is in the pages 
of such a writer as Ignatius that the foundations of the fact of 
such bodies being realities, must be sought. The word is ever 
on his lips, “The Bishop and the Presbytery.” 

If the Curetonian Syriac version be taken as the true form 
of the Epistles of Ignatius, the word “Presbytery” disappears, 
and the threefold Ministry is testified to as “The Bishop, and the 
Presbyters, and the Deacons,” but if the Shorter Greek version, 
so completely defended by Bishop Lightfoot, ge decided upon as 
guide, then at every turn we stumble upon something styled “The 
Presbytery . 91 

There is no use to look to Ignatius for any corroboration of 
the rule of the Congregation: He is the worst witness imagina¬ 
ble for that Polity. In the other direction the fact of his using 
the word “Presbytery” with the great frequency compels atten¬ 
tion, and we turn to see if in his pages we can find out the status 
of the Presbyters in the early part of the Second Century. Igna¬ 
tius not only speaks of the “Presbytery,” but he calls it “the 


The Special Order in History 


215 


fitly wreathed spiritual crown/’ and also says “Your honora¬ 
ble Presbytery, worthy of God, is attuned to the Bishop just as 
strings to a harp.” Then he goes further and declares “While 
3 r our Bishop presides in the place of God and your Presbyters 
in the place of the assembly (sunedrion ), of the Apostles.” Still 
more definite seem the words “And the Presbyters as the Sanhe¬ 
drim ( sunedrion ) of God, and assembly, ( sundesmon) of the 
Apostles.” Now the plain force of all these expressions, and the 
general language of Ignatius, almost wherever the Presbytery is 
mentioned, is to give us the idea of some body formed of Presby¬ 
ters existing as an entity. It is true the word sunedrion , cannot 
be pressed as far as the technical “Sanhedrim” for the assembly 
of the Apostles is in mind, (as we literally see in one of the above 
cases, and in the other also, where sundesmon, falls to one phrase 
and sunedrion, to the other) but it is manifest that the Presby¬ 
ters met in a body of some kind, and it is to them in their col¬ 
lectiveness that Ignatius refers. 

This existence before the year 110, and at Ephesus too, of 
such a body inclines us to think of it, not as a new, but an old 
Institution; and as existing say, at Corinth in Clement’s time, 
even though he makes no mention of it, and in the Congregation 
or Congregations to whom the Didache was addressed, though 
there, too, we are allowed no suspicion of its existence, by the 
text. In fact, an assembly of Elders that would be like an as¬ 
sembly of the Apostles, would be the most natural thing in the 
world, but we would expect both, to be similarly constituted and 
regulated, and this is just the idea we gather from Ignatius. 

Ignatius speaks of Presbyters as well as of the Presbytery, 
and it needs only a reading of him to see that the powers of the 
Presbytery are the personal powers of the Presbyters, and not 
the impersonal ones of a body. 

It is useless to attempt to learn from Ignatius the workings 
of the Presbytery, or the specific powers of Presbyters. The most 
distinct insight is that which we get from the fact that Ignatius 
always assumes that there is a Bishop (in the sense of after ages) 
along with the Presbytery, who occupies a higher office. The 
powers of the Presbyters are secondary powers. This is abso¬ 
lutely plain, and the question of Rule over Elders settled une- 


216 Analytics of Church Government 

quivocally. In the Epistle to the Magnesians, for instance, he 
says, “As I have known even holy Presbyters do, not judging 
rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance (of their Bishop) 
but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or 
rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the Bishop 
of us all. It is, therefore, fitting that you (the whole Church, 
we take it) after no hypocritical fashion obey (your Bishop) m 
honor of Him who has willed us (so to do) since he that does 
not so, deceives not, (by such conduct) the Bishop that is visi¬ 
ble, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible.” 

But the exaltation of the Bishop in the writings of Ignatius 
is, as is well known, of the supreme order. 

According to Ignatius, there is but one Bishop to each Church. 
He calls himself in the Epistle to the Romans “the Bishop of 
Syria” which implies that there might be but one Bishop for 
several Churches, but there are not several Bishops to one Church. 
In his mind, too, there are Bishops “settled everywhere to the 
utmost bounds/' and they who are so settled are in the mind of 
Jesus Christ. And, moreover, because “stewards of Christ, they 
are to be regarded as the Lord himself.” According then to the 
testimony of this great writer of the early part of the second Cen¬ 
tury, there is not the ghost of a chance that the Special Func¬ 
tions were located in the “Presbytery.” 

On the other hand, the position of a Timothy or a Titus is 
paralleled and almost exaggerated in that of Onesimus of Ephe¬ 
sus, Polycarp of Smyrna, Demas of Magnesia, and Polybius of 
Tralles. Instead of less, we could infer from the tone, even more. 
But, at least, the subjection of the Church, Elders, and people, 
is made plain. These Bishops are indeed, “distinguished men” 
and correspond very closely, we would say, to such an officer as 
one of the prophetical and teaching Apostles of the Didache 
“settled” and “abiding” in a local Church. We all know how 
early traditions, which are accepted by early Fathers, ascribe to 
St. John and other Apostles a work in Asia Minor, along the line 
of this settling process. 

The stress that Ignatius lays on the whole matter of order 
and harmony, and obedience of all to the Bishops and Presby¬ 
tery, which he evidently regards among “the ordinances of the 


The Special Order in History 


217 


Apostles” shows the welding process of new conditions with old 
still going on, and a matter of utmost anxiety to “the Bishop 
of Syria.” 

The Presbytery indeed, seems to resemble that Council of 
Presbyters around their Bishop which later became but a Bishop’s 
appanage, so to speak. Supposing that before the Apostles of 
the Didache settled, the Presbyters used the Conciliar method 
largely, then when the Apostle settled (and became a Bishop 
more and more in later sense) the Council whether occasional or 
regular would gradually be changed as to its prestige, if not as 
to its usefulness; for the higher authority would be constantly 
on the ground, and it would more and more become an advisory 
body to him, rather than a determining body as it must needs 
have been before—a Council for Counsel, however, in both cases. 
This must have first taken place at Jerusalem under James, and 
then Simeon. In the year 110, it could hardly have existed with 
equal force everywhere even though Ignatius testifies to Bishops 
being “settled everywhere” to the utmost bounds, but it had full 
sway in Asia Minor, according to the picture presented in at 
least six out of the seven letters of this writer. 

The picture some have drawn of Presbyters governing entire¬ 
ly as a board, and then the Moderator springing up into the 
Bishop of Ignatius’ day, make just this fatal mistake—that Igna¬ 
tius himself is the witness par excellence for the board theory, 
so far as there is any. Before him we have only one mention 
of a “Presbytery” that of St. Paul, in the Epistle to Timothy, 
and we have seen how little that text bears upon the very point 
to be determined. But in Ignatius the Presbytery which might 
at first be mistaken for a board, already seems almost an appan¬ 
age to the Bishop. It is the “fitly wreathed spiritual crown or 
circlet,” and is attuned to the Bishop as strings to a lyre. 

If, then, the very existence of a Presbytery depends upon 
Ignatius, and yet in him is seen only as subordinate to the Bishop, 
manifestly Ignatius is not the witness wanted. But there is no 
other unless it be St. Paul, as above stated. 

On the other hand, Ignatius gives the picture of a condi¬ 
tion closely resembling, if not exactly representing, the constitu¬ 
tion of a Church under a Bishop, a number of Presbyters, and 


218 


Analytics of Church Government 


Deacons, just as was almost everywhere seen in times a little 
later. Before Ignatius, we have frequent sight of men of high 
powers engaged in general work, and of Presbyters occupied in 
local work, the transition from one condition to the other, from 
the condition of going about to that of being settled, must be ex¬ 
plained, and either the extinction or the settling of the general 
workers must be alleged. 

In the Didache we learn the general worker was allowed to 
settle. The extinction would be the extinction of peculiar and 
highly valued functions. The settling would be most natural. 
In the term applied by Ignatius “Bishop of Syria” rather than 
“Bishop of Antioch” we have somewhat of a clue even to the 
process. Then, in the case of Polycarp, we have Ignatius giving 
us Polycarp's status as Bishop, and the later Ireanaeus pupil of 
Polycarp telling us, that Polycarp was “appointed Bishop of the 
Church at Smyrna by Apostles,” while Polycarp himself indites 
his Epistle to the Philippians quite in consonance with this 
idea. In other words, while we look in vain for any evidence of 
a body having more powers than a Presbyter, we find distinct 
evidence of men who did so have, and the condition shown by 
Ignatius is but the inevitable effect of the “settling” of these 
men. 

The reasons for such a settling, are those of necessity. The 
multiplication of Christians required larger numbers of general 
workers. They could easily and with advantage contract their 
territory. The example of Titus in Crete, could lead to the status 
of the “Bishop of Syria,” and that of Timothy at Ephesus, to 
that of the “Bishop of the Church of the Smyrneans.” There 
was necessity that the fields be somehow made distinct, and the 
old way of St. Peter and St. Paul, which was division along the 
line of Circumcision, and Uncircumcision, could no longer apply. 
Territorial limits seem eminently wise, and to have been so deemed 
by the men of those times. But while these general workers “set¬ 
tled ” and took special territory, so as to avoid confusion, there was 
not forgotten for some time the older status, and respect was ac¬ 
corded them wherever they moved. On this ground we can un¬ 
derstand the writing of letters by Ignatius, Clement, and Poly¬ 
carp to other Churches than their own special charges, and also 


The Special Order in History 


219 


we can see good reason for the tone of each of those letters. In 
everyone there is the sign of desire not to intrude, coupled with 
the tone of authority based on some sort of right to speak in a 
time of need. Some think this is the personal character of the 
writer manifesting itself, but it may just as well be a tone natu¬ 
ral to position. 

In the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians there is no 
corroboration certainly of any Congregational theory that exalts 
Consent into Authority. So, also, there is no Bishop above Presby¬ 
ters and Deacons anywhere in sight, unless the words “Polycarp 
and the Presbyters with him” be understood to agree with the 
Epistles of Ignatius as to Polycarp’s precedence. There is no 
indication of a “Presbytery” in the Church at Phillipi. Presby¬ 
ters are witnessed to, but the Presbyters are not addressed col¬ 
lectively or alluded to as a body. The absence of all reference 
to any one over them is marked. The condition is again like 
the condition of the same Church in its earliest days so far as 
anything in this Epistle is concerned. If the presence of a 
plurality of Presbyters be supposed to carry with it the theory 
of a governing body, rather than a number of governing men, then 
we have some indications against that view, for the Epistle gives 
instructions to the “Presbyters” which treats them as individuals , 
but covers a number of official duties, from visiting the sick, 
to the matter of severity of discipline; and distinctly points 
them to the day of Judgment. There is a sense of individual re¬ 
sponsibility assumed, and not at all that of a body taking the 
responsibility as well as duty, from the individuals’ shoulders. 

Here are the words, “Being subject to the Presbyters and 
Deacons as unto God and Christ,” (which clause of itself makes 
against the interpretation of subjection to a board or Presbytery 
by reason of the mention of the Deacons) “And let the Presby¬ 
ters be compassionate and merciful to all the sick, etc.; abstain¬ 
ing from all wrath, respect of persons and unjust judgment, 
keeping far off from all covetousness, not quickly crediting (an 
evil report) against any one, not severe in judgment as knowing 
we are all under a debt of sin, for we are before the eyes, etc.; 


220 


Analytics of Church Government 


“and we must all appear at the Judgment seat of Christ, and 
must every one give an account of himself. ” 

As to the putting of Presbyters and Deacons before the peo¬ 
ple as God and Christ, this only places Polycarp by the side of 
Ignatius, except that Ignatius speaks the same language in re¬ 
gard to Bishops and Presbyters. 

But this language gives us emphatically the idea that the 
Presbyters were for the Philippians tire highest officers at hand. 
That could, of course, mean that the Special Functions were not 
exercised there, unless the Philippian Presbyters differed from all 
others. We have long ago seen that if Presbyters were given 
the Special Functions they would ipso facto pass beyond the rank 
of Presbyter. The analysis drove us to consider a Special order, 
or a Special body which was endowed with higher powers than 
the individual Presbyter, viz: Rule over Elders, Appeal and Or¬ 
dination. If all Presbyters had Rule over Presbyters, etc.; there 
would be chaos. If one only, he would not differ in function from 
the Apostles. Evidently the whole status of things at Philippi 
is not given. Some may suppose there was a Presbytery of the 
hoard kind, in spite of silence, and the language above quoted, 
and some may suppose a man of Polycarp’s rank somewhere in 
the background, in spite of some difficulties in the way. Some 
supposition has to be made, and it is only to be remarked that 
it will be a supposition. 

Dr. Gore thinks that the recent passing through Philippi of 
Ignatius that tremendous insister on the threefold order, and 
believer in Bishop’s “everywhere to the utmost bounds” gives us 
assurance that things at Philippi were normal to his thought and 
practice. If there were mentioned in this Epistle as there is in 
that of Clement “Rulers” (seemingly in contrast to Presbyters) 
or “distinguished men” there would be something definite to 
argue from. As it is, we are obliged to say that from this Epis¬ 
tle of Polycarp, we do not see where in the Philippian Church 
the Special Functions could be located, except by purest surmise, 
and we are left on the one hand, without the slightest evidence 
of a Presbyterial board; and on the other, our sole indication of 
testimony to the higher order, is the classification of Poly carp in 
the phrase “Polycarp and the Presbyters with him” taken in 


The Special Order in History 


221 


connection with the evidence of Ignatius and Irenaeus, that Poly¬ 
carp did indeed rank above the Presbyters of Smyrna. 

The failure of this Epistle however to reveal the board of 
Presbyters that we have been looking for, compels us to come 
down to the middle of the Second Century without anything more 
in favor of such a body than the Epistles of Ignatius, such as 
that testimony is, and the phrase of St. Paul in his Epistle to 
Timothy. With the age of Irenaeus the hope of finding such a 
body must pass, and between Polycarp and his pupil Irenaeus, 
the gap is very small. 

In the account of “the Martyrdom of Polyearp" we have an 
illuminating phrase concerning Polycarp's status in the Christian 
world that might help to shed light on his right to the tone of 
his letter to the Philippians, and certainly agrees with the idea 
of the existence of an order of men above the Presbyters of local 
Churches. It says of him, “Having in our own times been an 
apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church 
which is in Smyrna." 

The last clause has the smack of a later writer, but the first 
apostolic and prophetic teacher sounds too much like the early 
Didache, and too little like the later ecclesiastic tone, to be so 
taken, and moreover, conforms so well with the words, “He said 
to them prophetically," used in a previous part of the account, 
as to have the note of genuineness. 

In Hermas all that can be said, is that there is no mention 
of a Presbytery in any sense, and only such allusions to the offi¬ 
cers, as to allow of the higher order, but not to prove it. He speaks 
of “Rulers;" of “those that love the chief seat,” (or chief seats); 
of Apostles, Bishops, Teachers, and Deacons, “who have acted as 
bishops and teachers and deacons;” of “apostles and teachers who 
preached over the whole world;" of “presbyters who preside.” 

Our difficulty is that the date of Hermas is uncertain, and 
as Dr. Gore points out, the early date would probably give the 
word bishop one meaning, and the later date quite the other. If 
written when “his brother Pius” was Bishop of Rome, the enume¬ 
ration of “Apostles, Bishops, Teachers, and Deacons,” would mean 
the Twelve, the Bishops, the Presbyters and Deacons. If written 


222 


Analytics of Church Government 


earlier, the term apostles would be vague, and the bishop and 
teachers would be identical officers. 

The term “Presbyters who preside” is but a repetition of St. 
Paul’s words to the Thessalonians, with the Presbyters made ex¬ 
plicit in Hermas, while they were of course implicit in St. Paul. 
The predicate proistamenos is the same in both, and the men of 
the same order—local officers. As to the word, chief-seats, it 
sounds as if there might have been a kind of sunedrion , but then 
there is also the suggestion of a kathedra. The Rulers and 
those that love the chief seat, (or chief seats), are distinguished 
apparently, so that if we regard the language (that seems to avoid 
technicalities) as actually squaring with them, then the first would 
be the General workers, and the latter, the local—the Presby¬ 
ters. 

Justin Martyr gives us little to go upon. He speaks of “the 
Apostles in the memoirs composed by them which are called the 
Gospels” as though there were no need to separate Sts. Luke and 
Mark from the others in using such a term, but this may be only 
a lack of precision. Again he speaks of the one officiating at 
the “Eucharist” as the pro'e'stds which only carries us as far as 
St. Paul’s proistamenous, and is as vague as Hegoumenos, poim- 
en, episcopos ” or presbuteros, so far as separating between the 
orders is concerned. Historically, Justin belongs to an age when 
in many places at least, the General worker had “settled,” and 
when present was the one who first of right would officiate at 
the “Eucharist,” but where such a man was not “abiding” the 
Presbyters according to some system presumably, would have full 
right to act. However, we are not venturing to use Justin as far 
as this. For our investigation he is practically colorless, helping 
more to confirm an idea than to establish one. 

Papias, Tatian, “Mathetes,” Barnabas, Theophilus, and 
Athenagoras do not help us, except that Papias may be taken as 
the Bishop of Hierapolis, and, being so near the Apostles, help to 
confirm the idea of the “settling” process beginning very early. 
So too, if we grant that Theophilus was, as Eusebius states, the 
Bishop of Antioch after that Euodius who followed Ignatius, w*e 
would see the settling process becoming permanent. But the 
“Martyrdom of Ignatius,” though not indubitably of the very 


The Special Order in History 


223 


early age it purports, speaks of Ignatius, that he “Governed” the 
Church of the Antiochans with great care; and of Polycarp as the 
“Bishop of Smyrna. ,, 

Furthermore, this “Martyrdom of Ignatius’’ tells us the 
Churches of Asia through their Bishops and Presbyters and Dea¬ 
cons” welcomed Ignatius, and also calls them their “Rulers.” 
Finally it says, “But the Bishop rejoicingly yielded to their (the 
soldiers) urgency,” using the word “Bishop” in the way of a 
title as we would use it to-day. This may be a sign of a later 
date, or it may be an item of proof that it was written by friends 
who accompanied him, and were at home accustomed to so speak 
of him. 

When we come to Hegessippus, to Irenaeus, Clement of 
Alexandria, Hippolytus and Tertullian, we come to the age where 
the three degrees are so distinctly seen, that there is no need to 
multiply instances. Hegessippus, Irenaeus and Tertullian speak 
of the succession of Bishops in one or more of the Churches, in 
terms that allow us, no doubt of their meaning officers who were 
over both Presbyters and the Churches. Clement of Alexandria, 
speaks of the “Grades in the Church here on earth, of Bishops, 
Presbyters, Deacons.” Hippolytus gives us the account of Callis- 
tus, “who was impelled by restless ambition to mount the Epis¬ 
copal throne” at Rome. These things, and many more, leave us 
no doubt about conditions in this age. But very important are 
■Clement’s allusions to the “Apostle Barnabas” and mention of 
Clement of Rome as the “Apostle Clement” as fitting in, if not 
going so far as proving the idea that the Apostolic office was ex¬ 
tended. So, also, when Irenaeus speaks as follows we catch the 
same idea. “We are in a position to reckon up those who were by 

the Apostles instituted Bishops in the Church.to whom 

they were also committing the Churches themselves . . . . , 
whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering 
up their own place of government (magistracy, according to the 
Latin version) to these men.” 

On the other hand, in regard to any search for a Presbytery 
of any kind, our difficulty would be enhanced by the now wide¬ 
spread existence of this local Episcopate. That any author should 
go into details to the point of making it clear, how far the com- 



224 Analytics of Church Government 

bined result was due to each of the mingled degrees, would be un¬ 
expected indeed. For instance, Hippolytus tells us of the trial 
for heresy of Noetus, and though he uses the words “The blessed 
Presbyters” so great is the confusion of the use of that term at 
this time, (the early part of the 3rd Century) that we cannot 
tell whether they were the comprovincial Bishops of the suburbi- 
carian diocese of Rome, or not; or (if it was not in Italian ter¬ 
ritory at all, but in Asia Minor), whether they were “Presbyter- 
Bishops, or simple Presbyters. At any rate, the whole mode of 
procedure is just what we would expect from a Council of the 
kind all along supposed to be possible and actual. It is not even 
known of what rank Noetus was or even whether he was a cleric. 
The custom of considering questions of Faith in Councils had 
probably been practiced from the first. 

With Origin comes the age of Councils of Bishops, and 
Hippolytus reached into this period also. Cyprian, too, is the 
great caller of Councils both with his Presbyters and with the 
neighboring Bishops. There is indeed no use to go further. Je¬ 
rome and Ambrosiaster will be noticed in the next chapter, and 
the customs of the age we have now reached are not in question 
at all. There were three orders in the Churches on every side. 
The Presbyters were losing power and prestige, and in fact the 
day for exaltation of the Bishops, to a point doubtless undreamed 
of by Ignatius, for all his ascription of place and honor to the 
Bishop, was at hand. 

Thus we have run through the list of writers, to catch from 
them a view of things as they existed in their own day. A few 
side lights have been used, but the evidence to be used is that 
which bears upon the facts as they existed. We have very meagre 
notes, and the glimpses we catch are not those we can be sure of, 
yet it must be plain that the existence of three orders of men in 
the work is much plainer than that of two. The existence of 
three depends on positive exhibition of three. The existence of 
two only would rest on negative evidence, such as the failure of 
one or more documents to mention three. There is no declara¬ 
tion in favor of two, as there is for the existence of three. Fin¬ 
ally, the only writer that can be used for positive evidence of a 
“Presbytery*’ is the very strongest in his assertion of three orders. 


CHAPTER VII 


Discussion of tbe Historical System in igitenso 

We are obliged to depend on History to tell us about any 
change in the matter of Church Government from the three¬ 
fold form which is exhibited in action during the Scriptural per¬ 
iod, for after St. Paul’s death there is still left a goodly number 
of General workers in the field. But previous to his death, nearly 
all Scripture had been written, and with the exception of St. 
John’s Gospel and the Book of Revelation, all that bears at all on 
the matter of government. The former does not touch the period 
of the Church’s growth, and the latter has but the brief reference 
to false Apostles, and the indeterminate term the “Angels” of the 
Seven Churches. Practically , the Bible ends and leaves three or¬ 
ders \n existence, so we are compelled to look to History to test 
any alleged cessation of the highest order. St. Peter soon follows 
St. Paul; and St. James, certainly, and St. Jude, probably, do 
not survive the destruction, of Jerusalem, but various early tra¬ 
ditions mention some by name, as living after that event, and it 
is not reasonable to conclude that the year 71 saw the extinction 
of the General workers. The turning to History is therefore the 
most legitimate procedure imaginable in order to see what changes 
took place. Had Scripture foretold what would be the order of 
the Ministry after these men passed, the case would be different, 
but it makes no provision against the time when the General work¬ 
ers (who possessed the Special Functions) must needs be different 
men, or cease altogether. So we turn with clear conscience to 
the only source of information. 

The facts which we believe we find are these: The General 
workers were growing more numerous, but were losing their pres¬ 
tige, from the double cause of the dying off of the well-known 
men, and the coming in of men who had to be tried and proved 
before allowed to exercise their authority or ministry, as they 
travelled from place to place. For insight into this condition, 
we have St. John’s words in the Book of Revelation to the Church 
at Ephesus as to “false apostles” and the plain words of the Di- 


226 


Analytics of Church Government 


dache concern the “Teachers, Apostles and Prophets” who came 
to the Churches of some region then uninstructed. Nothing 
could be more natural than this condition. Never mind what the 
Functions of these men were, yet that there were men engaged in 
general work, and who travelled about from place to place, accord¬ 
ing to some rule of course, but rules unknown to us, is granted by 
all. It may not be according to our former thought to conceive them 
as having such high Functions as to place them above Elders, 
but the Didache calls them “High-priests” and “'Honored ones’ ’ 
and St. John implies for them high office. These men could 
“abide” and St. Ignatius speaks of those whom he calls Bishops 
as “settled” everywhere. 

The condition depicted above could be met indeed by just 
such a process as this settling. St. Paul had himself, in the in¬ 
stances of Timothy and Titus, marked the way for the co-workers, 
but even the Great Apostles themselves had “abided” at different 
times and places. At first then, there would be a contraction 
of circuit, in some regions at least, and gradually there would 
come a much narrower limit, as they sought to respect each other 
amid crowding conditions. Traditions very probable and well 
attested, tell us of St. John in later life as engaged in just such 
work as establishing men over the various Churches, and also of 
others of the Apostles—Philip and Andrew probably, engaged 
with him. Polycarp is specifically said to have been so placed 
by the Apostles at Smyrna. Ignatius, calling himself Bishop of 
Syria, is generally known as Bishop of Antioch. Pothinus of 
the same age went from Asia to Gaul, and became Bishop of 
Lyons. The confusion as to Linus, Anencletus, and Clement at 
Rome, is best explained as due to some uncertainty as to whether 
to classify one of them according to his range or his settlement. 
Clement may have long remained in a travelling exercise of office ; 
and finally have settled at Rome either because of the death, or 
resumption of missionary life by Linus, or Anencletus, just as 
some one else may have taken Crete when Titus went to Dalma¬ 
tia. All of them lived in the age of transition, and each of them 
may have had in turn special, but not exclusive relations to Rome, 
during this time. 

At any rate we are obliged to pass from the conditions seen 


Discussion of the Historical System in Extenso 227 

in the Didache to that seen in Ignatius. That of the Didache 
passed away and that of the Asia Minor Church came on apace. 
If the Apostle of the Didache settled, his name “Apostle” from 
its meaning would become out of place, and that of Episcopus 
become exactly descriptive. The twofold name which the local 
workers possessed, easily allowed that one could be spared. Up to 
the settlement all would be Episcopoi, but now this former Apos¬ 
tle was so essentially an overseer that custom would easily work 
the change. The opposing theory of the elevation of a Modera¬ 
tor to the name and work of Bishop implies a change that might 
happen in one or two places but not so simultaneously in so many, 
unless by direction of the Apostles. Besides there is no evidence 
of any regular body or permanent Moderator in all History or 
Scripture. And, finally, the struggle against a usurpation on the 
one hand, and, on the other, the ease of acceptation of a modi¬ 
fication in the direction of convenience without addition of power 
for the officer, are qualities of human nature that make for the 
theory of settling against that of usurpation. ‘Come, abide with 
us, and you will find in this our great city all the work you can 
do, now that you are getting on in years, and persecutions are 
threatening,’ would be a very natural thing to be said amid the 
conditions of those times, and if, as we are told by early writers, 
the Apostles began the movement (placing Poly carp for instance 
over Smyrna) there was authority as well as nature. 

The elevation theory grows out of words of Jerome, but these 
will be easily seen a little further on to indicate, naturally, an¬ 
other change, which was perfectly unavoidable under our suppo¬ 
sition of the settlement theory. This elevation theory leaves the 
General workers to die out , and their functions with them, and 
then recreates the functions , by a process of concentration,or of 
usurpation on the part of one, of that which belonged to a body 
(or to all in a body), which body has to be assumed and its Mod¬ 
erator imagined. For no one pretends that a single Presbyter 
possessed Rule over Presbyters, but only the body of Presbyters, 
so that if one man finally possessed it, as we see in Ignatius, it 
was by concentrating the powers of all on one, or by usurpation 
of one over all. Against such a theory the leaning of History 
towards the settlement theory becomes a relief. 


228 


Analytics of Church Government 


Now taking for granted the settlement of the rovers, and the 
fact however explained, that when they are found settled it is as 
overseers not so much of tracts of territory, like Titus; but rather 
of cities, like Timothy, we have conditions which need adjustment. 
These General workers when leading their roving life, on com¬ 
ing to any place where their claims were allowed, possessed the 
Special Functions, and so when they settled, they introduced into 
local work the continual supervision which before had been oc¬ 
casional. Now, this element of high authority had to be pro¬ 
vided for in seemly manner, and yet the long enjoyed prestige of 
the Presbyters sufficiently guarded. 

It is Cyprian, the strenuous Bishop of Carthage, who in his 
5th Epistle, said “I made up my mind to do nothing on my own 
private opinion, without your advice (the Presbyters and Dea¬ 
cons of Carthage), and without the consent of the people” just 
as in the other direction the fervent Ignatius had, one hundred 
and forty years before, urged the Churches to “Do nothing with¬ 
out the Bishop and the Presbyters. ” Whether the Presbyters 
formed a regular body we can not tell, but is probable that they 
had some kind of organization which did not rob them of their 
personal authority of office but enabled them to act in concert. 
Such a body it is true nearly always ends by taking to the body 
much more power than was contemplated in the beginning, but 
the Presbyters’ personal functions were by ordination, while the 
body could only claim to derive from the act of unison, both its 
existence and its authority, and so the rights of a Presbyter were 
somewhat guarded. 

Now when the “Apostle” settled, his relation to the presbyters 
would be the same whether they met in Council or not. St. Ig¬ 
natius’ use of the word Presbytery implies that they did so meet, 
and certainly the power to do so was settled as early as the times 
of the Council of Jerusalem. St. Ignatius tells of the Presbytery 
“attuned to the Bishop as the strings to the Cithera;” and such a 
relation seems to satisfy the former conditions, the several powers, 
the essential dignities of both settling “Apostle” and the local 
officers. If the settling theory be true, what admirably tuned and 
justly phrased letters those of the lion-hearted “Bishop of Syria” 
are. He had doubtless been a General worker ere selected for a 


Discussion of the Historical System in Extenso 229 


settled work by the Apostles (as Timothy might have been per¬ 
manently settled by St. Paul before him, had St. Paul so de¬ 
cided) and therefore his right to speak, and his tone of speaking, 
become plain. 

And now there comes another problem to look into. These 
fii3t workers and settlers would die, but the territorial arrange¬ 
ments whatever they might be, would remain. How then, would 
their successors be appointed? At the very first glance we would 
say he would be taken from the ranks of the local officers, and 
possibly by some scheme of seniority, as that arrangement which 
best avoided hard feelings. And so it seems historically to have 
been done. Jerome is often quoted to show that at first “The 
Churches were governed by the common Council of the Presby¬ 
ters” but that after “each one began to reckon those whom he bap¬ 
tized as belonging to himself” (alluding of course to the be¬ 
ginning of the “Heresiarchs”) it was decreed throughout the 
whole world that one elected from the Presbyters should be set 
over the rest, that he should have the care of the whole Church, 
that the seeds of schisms might be destroyed.” Jerome is also sup¬ 
ported by other evidence, needless to be here given, that the first 
Bishops were taken from the Elders of the particular Church over 
which he became chief officer. Now if Jerome’s expression “gov¬ 
erned by the common Council of the presbyters” be taken to prove 
a Presbytery of a particular kind, that point is to be combated; 
but if that question be not raised, it is undoubtedly true that be¬ 
fore the General workers settled, the local officers were presbyters 
who had full liberty of meeting in common Council. Jerome in as¬ 
signing the cause why the Bishop arose, as the need made manifest 
by the rise of “Heresiarchs,” is surely correct, in so far as this 
was one of very chiefest reasons. Heresiarchs presented the 
charm, naturalness and power of a single name and personality. 
It was time for the chief authority in each Church to stand out as 
a person, rather than as a common Council. A personal leader¬ 
ship always has advantage over a collective one, in contests with 
personal opposition, but if the personal be added to the collective, 
then so much the better by a great deal. Jerome shows the 
Church’s wisdom certainly. But, other conditions contributed of 
course, which he does not go into. Undoubtedly, too, he is correct 


230 


Analytics of Church Government 


in stating that “One elected from the Presbyters should be set 
over the rest, that he should have the care of the whole Church, 
that the seeds of schisms might be destroyed.” 'We are surprised 
to read “It was decreed throughout the whole world,” but we 
would expect to find it done throughout the whole world. 

Of course, if this simultaneous rising up of the Church in fa¬ 
vor of one man having the care of the whole Church, (local of 
course), waB in the time when still there lived the General workers, 
they would be provided for—that need not disturb the problem, 
and where they were lacking, as would naturally happen in many 
regions, the election of one of the Elders already tried and proved, 
would be the most fit and wise proceeding. We read in St. John 
and the Didache about the trying and proving of the General work¬ 
ers, and, afterwards, even a Roman Emperor, commends the cus¬ 
tom of the Christians, posting the names previous to selection or 
ordination so that objection might be made. 

It is Ignatius who fixes approximately the period when the 
change in the local Churches took place, for it is he that tells of 
Bishops “everywhere to the utmost bounds.” The words “elected” 
and “set over” carry us right back to the selection and appoint¬ 
ment of the Seven as given in the Scriptures, and we would ex¬ 
pect this setting over to be by ordination, but Jerome is not to be 
quoted for this, but rather against it, as we shall see. Jerome does 
however show us that the time was very early, for he puts it for 
Alexandria as early as the time of St. Marie , so that when we hear 
him saying “It was decreed” we also can add “from St. Mark.” 

Ambrosiaster’s words, so often found alleged against the three" 
fold order, fit in here. “Every Bishop is a Presbyter, but not 
every Presbyter is a Bishop.” The settling process made a local 
officer of him who had been a General worker. He joined in with 
the local work and so identified himself with the workers as to 
share their name. As we know, the word Presbyter is the most 
general of all, not even squinting in the direction of official Func¬ 
tion. St. John and St. Peter both claim it, and both at a time 
when they had settled down. 

Furthermore, since St. Paul and St. Ismatius both speak of 
“the Presbytery,” and in any kind of Council of Presbyters, the 
higher officer would take part, it was a title truly applicable to the 


Discussion of the Historical System in Extenso 231 


“Apostle” who had given up the work that made appropriate the 
term apostle and had taken one in which his work would be that 
of Bishop and Elder. If he fell heir to the word Bishop as his 
title exclusively, because now presumably, the overseer, why could 
he not share (as he did in fact for a long stretch of time) the 
title of Elder ? Finally, he was from the first elected from the 
Elders in some places, and soon in all, and as Ambrosiaster him¬ 
self says “In the Bishop are all orders,” so he was entitled to the 
name. 

The Church in Alexandria long held to the custom of taking 
one of the Presbyters for Bishop. Learned writers dispute over 
the exact status and process, but at least all agree that when 
Jerome says that, “From Mark the Evangelist even to Heraclas 
and Dionisius, the Bishops, the Presbyters always named as Bishop 
one elected from themselves and placed in a higher grade,” testi¬ 
mony is borne to the fact that out of themselves came the higher 
officer. Now we will recall that at Carthage, in Cyprian’s day, that 
illustrious layman was made Presbyter and then Bishop with great 
opposition from the Presbyters, so that the old custom was broken 
in his day in more places than at Rome. 

Next, we have a change which, very natural and seemingly 
necessary, leads to further changes apparently uncontemplated by 
the Apostles, if, indeed, as has been asserted by early writers, they 
themselves introduced the settling of the General workers, and the 
election and appointment of others to the local Episcopate, which 
we have just discussed. 

It has been seen that Jerome gives as the reason for the 
Episcopate, the rise of Heresiarchs, and the need of conditions in 
the Church to combat the evil; and we have seen that one of 
the Presbyters was to be taken; but let us suppose the rule of 
seniority to be the governing principle of the election, then we 
must also see that very old and, oftentimes, inferior men would 
be chosen. There are writers who point to the short Episcopates 
of early ages to show that besides persecution, some principle like 
that of seniority is necessary to be assumed in order to account 
for those facts. It could well have been so as a general thing, 
but hardly as a fixed rule. St. Paul’s words to Timothy about 
“those able to teach,” implies that practical reasons were to be 


232 Analytics of Church Government 

heeded. Ignatius speaks of Damas as quite young. James of 
Jerusalem could not have been the oldest of that Church. Jerome 
says, “elected,” which implies a certain freedom. And for these 
reasons and on the general principle of common sense, we would 
only regard the idea of seniority as prevailing by reason of a 
strong bias in its favor. 

But, if once the election was not bound by rule, then a3 
the age of heresy advanced, the tendency to select according to 
fitness would be increased. So, actually, we find no compelling 
rule applying, and when once the minds of men turned entirely 
to the stress of heretical pressure, and the necessity for learning 
and ability, the election takes wider scope, and we soon find it 
possible for Cyprian to be taken as a layman against the wishes 
of the Presbyters. Consent of the people has asserted itself in 
the vital matter of election, and the Bishop is finally chosen very 
much as the people of each Church prefer. How far the Authori¬ 
ties aided the pressure rising from the people, is too large a 
digression here, but at least we must look to popular feeling as 
bringing about the change. 

It may look to some, as if there had been a Presbytery of 
the strictest order, and that its aged Moderator had gradually 
changed into a Bishop, but the line of changes above given seems 
at once, more historical and plausible. That the later Bishops 
exercised the Special Functions is perfectly clear and admitted, 
and whether we should take the theory of the reestablishment of 
these functions, after their loss along with that of the General 
worker, or the theory of their being usurped from the body of 
the Presbytery by the Moderator, we would have a task, in which 
none of the writers of that age, would assist us, and across the 
path of which those words of Jerome, “It was decreed through¬ 
out the whole world” would lie. For, Ignatius, by saying, that 
Bishops were settled everywhere to the utmost bounds cuts off 
all (even if they were favorable) after himself, and leaves the 
Didache and Clement as the only writings to explain the move¬ 
ment claimed. 

We may wonder both how Ignatius knew of the fact of settle¬ 
ment, and Jerome of the “decree that one elected from the Pres¬ 
byters should be set over the rest,” but these are unqualified 


Discussion of the Historical System in Extenso 233 

statements of the very two writers who stand preeminently forth 
as witnesses for "the Presbytery” and the "common Council of 
the Presbyters.” It is sufficient to say that if Ignatius and 
Jerome be taken away as witnesses for the existence of Presby¬ 
teries, all that is solid quakes under the foot of that system, and 
if they be left, the decree and the facts above mentioned are 
placed in evidence. But only add the Didache to these two, 
and from the three witnesses the General workers are seen be¬ 
coming localized; men who will be made equal in function to 
these General-workers are seen elected out of the Presbyteries; 
these presbyteries become "attuned” to the former, "as strings 
to a Cithera” and Authority and Consent are seen taking counsel 
together for the good of all. 

There is yet the problem of the customs relating to the reg¬ 
ulation of these new local officers, the Bishops, to be explained. 
We have just seen how the General workers settled, and became 
Bishops rather than Aposltles—overseers, rather than delegates 
or messengers ; and how, where these were not available, Presby¬ 
ters were elected to the same rank, and set over the rest of the 
Presbyters. We have also seen that one of the chief reasons 
for this strengthening of the local Church by the addition of this 
higher officer to the local staff, was the rise of heresies taking 
head and front under Heresiarchs, men who had a personal fol¬ 
lowing. 

So now we find the local Churches no longer under the rule of 
officers who are Hegoumenoi , proestotes, poimenes, episcopoi, 
Kuberneloi , and presbuteroi, but both officers and people under 
the rule of one man who is essentially all of these, and draws to 
himself all the titles, except presbuteros, almost to the exclusion 
from them of the other officers. (He could possibly be given 
this also, but does not do more than share it with the rest.) 

There was need of a leader, a shepherd, one who should be 
stationed in front, an overseer, a pilot, and so he was found 
already provided and easily available through a slight though 
most significant change of the working plan of the Church’s 
system. But, though losing their titles to a great extent, the 
Elders still retained their place and functions, and, as a Coun¬ 
cil, continually consulted, a very great part of their prestige. 


234 


Analytics of Church Government 


However, there was always the tendency to the strengthening of 
the Bishop, rather than of the Presbyters. Had these Presbyters 
formed a close corporation by themselves, and stood over against 
the Bishop as unit to unit : they would have had greater resisting 
power, but the Bishop was one of themselves—a member of the 
Council, so that as a Council there was little chance of antagonis¬ 
tic struggle. Historically, their Council became an appanage of 
the Bishop, as soon as the drift of circumstances opened the way. 
The Presbyters, however, though they stood as Authority towards 
the people, towards the Bishop they constituted a kind of head 
and front of Consent, and as such, never lost their usefulness. The 
progress of the world has ultimately made a difference in ten¬ 
dency, and Councils have often taken revenge, so to speak, on 
the Bishop. 

However, since this was the status of affairs after the local 
Episcopate (first exemplified at Jerusalem doubtless, and then 
at Antioch, etc.,) came into view, what control was provided for 
these numerous Bishops? Manifestly the ancient Episcopal ju¬ 
risdictions were small—a City or a small town even, as a general 
rule. But this compelled the number of Bishops to grow excessive, 
and even though they were select men taken from the long tried 
Presbyters, it cannot be supposed they did not need restraint. 

Now the Apostles had no one over them, and the roving 
General workers seem to have had no controllers, nor were there 
any functions of office higher than the Apostolic ones—the Special 
Functions, yet, nevertheless, the very number of these men made 
a dangerous condition. The right of election, notoriously belong¬ 
ing in last resort to the people and recognizedly so in the Churches, 
implies the right of holding all officers to account even if their 
Authority descend from above, but this was not enough. His¬ 
torically, therefore, we see the rise of Councils of Bishops. This 
was not the only cause of these Councils of course, but it was 
one. It could not but be, that affairs that concerned a number 
of Churches would be consulted about. Had not the Apostles 
come together to “consider of” a matter of general interest? And 
was there not a general right and duty of consultation just from 
general principles? Here was the age of heresies that threat¬ 
ened whole regions, and truly the Conciliar plan was the only 


Discussion of the Historical System in Extenso 235 

one in sight. At first they must have been very local, and as 
early as the age of Polycarp we find that certain general differ¬ 
ences between regions far apart were dealt with by a conference 
between representative leaders rather than anything like a Coun¬ 
cil—Polycarp coming to Rome. Later, Irenaeus does the same 
thing. But the age of Councils of Bishops could not be staved 
off. In Cyprian’s day they were a frequent thing, provincially, 
and soon came even the General Councils. 

The control of Bishops soon became the gist of the business 
of Councils, and under the plea of unifying customs, the territory 
of every Bishop was invaded, and things set in order as the Coun¬ 
cils saw fit. In a little while the exigency of Councils brought 
the Metropolitan, and then the Patriarchal system, and finally 
paved the way for a presidency of Council to be alleged as a 
right to supremacy over the world. So, if, on the one hand, the 
Bishop in a Diocese throttled the Council of Presbyters, on the 
otner, the Councils of Bishops throttled the Bishops, until once 
more the Conciliar plan terminated in one man claiming power 
over Councils and Bishops and Churches in one vast system of 
Autocracy. Thus we have in sight the terrors of the evil that 
may follow both the Conciliar and the Personal plan. 

But it may be said that the true Conciliar plan was never 
followed, and that if the Conciliar body had been from the first 
allowed to act as a unit that possessed its powers as such, there 
never would have been the results that History exhibits, as things 
wind up towards an Autocracy. The answer to which is, that, 
either, that existence and action and power as a unit never was, 
or that the alleged unit was so weak as to lose its existence at 
the very first stage of History. 

In spite of leading to Autocracy, and interference, the wind¬ 
ing up process had its good results. Heresy was become a world 
power, and only a power as broad could prove as strong. If 
Jerome is right in saying that Heresiarchs led the Church to 
further developments in the line we have followed, “Anthanasius 
against the world/’ is the tribute of ages to the power of Person¬ 
ality. In spite of Rome’s ultimate Autocracy we can hardly be¬ 
lieve that heresy could have been met unless there had been a 
channel for concentrated powers. As the Empire weakened, and 


236 


Analytics of Church Government 


flew to pieces, Consent began to rage against Authority; and 
had not Authority been able to gather itself to a head, the Faith 
may have suffered longer and more greatly than is now the case. 
Councils made a Pulpit for Anthanasius and Leo, as well as a 
throne for Hildebrand. 

We turn to consider the nature of the Councils of Bishops, 
which so soon hide from sight the Councils of Presbyters. Were 
they such bodies as we have combatted—bodies of the Board type— 
or. Councils for counsel? In the beginning they were of tne 
latter kind, and gradually took on more and more the character 
of the former. They have never attained the goal to which 
they travel, because of the difficulty of finding an executive for 
their decrees. If Consent will execute Decrees all is smooth; 
but if it will not, there must be found an Executor. An Execu¬ 
tor over Bishops is not provided by Christ, or the Apostles; and 
can only be provided by the Church, out of the powers of Con¬ 
sent, but in accordance with the system of the Founder. Metro¬ 
politans and Patriarchs were tried. The difficulty lay in the fact 
that their Functions of office were no greater than those of the 
ordinary Bishops. This is Christ’s protection of His system 
against usurpation. It must come back to its bearings, however 
far it wanders away. Popes came in through the need that Gen¬ 
eral Councils had of an Executive, but even a Pope could only 
have the Special Functions. Inasmuch as Christ had never 
given any man Rule over “ Apostles, ” there were no Functions of 
Office adequate to the task undertaken. In the case of Metro¬ 
politans and Patriarchs there could be no claims like those of 
Rome, “Feed my sheep.” Before ever the stage of Papacy wa 3 
reached and entrenched behind that text, the movement could 
have been stopped at the Metropolitan, but Consent was with it, 
and the movement went on. When it reached the Papacy, the 
world heard for the first time that Christ had given Peter author¬ 
ity over the rest of the Apostles. Consent paused, but acquiesced, 
and then, with the light of the Word making plain day, revolted 
and shore off the Protestant half of Europe almost in a genera¬ 
tion. 

But if the tendency was to consolidation of the powers of 
Council until it should claim all things for its Executive, in 


Discussion of the Historical System in Extenso 237 

the beginning it was not so. The Council of Presbyters, which at 
first had no executive greater than one of its members, found 
one ready at hand, under the System of the Master Himself, in 
the General workers, whose Functions of Office included Rule 
over Elders; but for the Council of Bishops, no executive was 
to be had. Consent was therefore necessary to its decrees in so 
far they touched a member, or invaded his Diocese. This was 
wrung oftentimes by threats of withdrawal from communion with 
him, (which is one of the weapons of Consent, and quite differ¬ 
ent from Excommunication, which comes ex-auctoritate, as we 
see in St. Paul’s Epistles), but still matters stayed for awhile 
under the status of this Consent. But Consent implies that the 
nature of the Council was deliberative and advisory—a means for 
gaining common and concentrated action. 

If it surprises us to see the apparent weakness of the Church 
when we note this crowd of Bishops under no superior control, 
it will help us to consider that up to this point Authority is 
very firmly seated, and now by means of the rights and powers 
of Consent, can adapt itself very admirably to circumstances, as 
History shows us by the Metropolitan and Patriarchal system. 
But not so firmly seated ought it to be in a region where tyranny 
is easy, and hard to be met. The appeal of Authority to its pow¬ 
ers must be limited somewhere, and Consent ought to have play 
on the higher, as well as the lower regions of control. There 
must be always scope for successful reduction of Authority to 
its limits. If a Council were placed over the Bishops as of God’s 
law, then since Councils always create Executives, the end would 
be personal rule. If a person were placed over Bishops there 
would be personal rule at once. Then who would rule these per¬ 
sons? Other Councils? Other Rulers? The end would be the 
Papacy all over again. Some limit must be reached, and, follow¬ 
ing the bestowal of Functions of Ministry, that limit falls natur¬ 
ally where Scripture and History put it. 

Besides, even if Dioceses historically began as small affairs, 
there is no law against their becoming larger. Why need Bishops 
be so numerous, and Dioceses, the units of the Church, so small? 
Convenience and conditions that stress certain needs vary. The 
age of larger Dioceses came, and with no law against them. The 


238 


Analytics of Church Government 


very elasticity of the Episcopate that springs from General work¬ 
ers, Apostles, is one of the safeguards. 

So, then, care of selection from tried Presbyters, Consent 
below and above them, liberty and necessity of Councils, responsi¬ 
bility, publicity of life and teaching, and the elasticity of the 
system, reduce the problem to quite tolerable proportions. But 
who shall guard the guards, is always a question—and the guards 
of the guards as well? 

Our Lord places none over the Apostles. Except in a Papacy 
there must always be some guardless, and even then, there is a 
Borgia, rare subject for discipline, and Honorius the anathema¬ 
tized. If it be only the point where to let Authority stop, there 
can be no better point found than where the Scriptures place 
it—the General workers. Controlling conditions, rather than con¬ 
trolling persons, are then encountered. 

History brings to our view another matter connected with the 
settling of the Apostle. In the Didache there is a form given for 
the “Thanksgiving* * that is to say the Holy Communion, but 
the “Prophet ” of that document, who is identified by it with the 
“Apostle” can use his own extempore words. At any rate the 
General worker was recognized as having special right to conse¬ 
crate the bread and wine. So too, he was essentially a Preacher. 
When then he settled and became Bishop, or when a Presbyter was 
made Bishop, these two Functions were looked upon as belonging 
especially to him, and after him to the others. If he was present, 
it was natural for him to take the place of precedence in the offices 
of worship. Afterwards there was such a development of this 
idea, that the right to Preach in the presence of the Bishop was 
esteemed. 

The right to celebrate comes up in the time of Polycarp’s 
visit to Rome where he is described as requested to take the place 
of honor by Anicetus. 

Also in Justin Martyr’s allusions to the Ministry, it perhaps 
helps us to understand Him as meaning the Bishop when he speaks 
of the proestds for it is as presiding in the celebration of the 
Eucharist that he presents him to our view. Now in Jerome we 
come across the expression “For what does a Bishop do, that a 
Presbyter may not do except ordination?” and it is probable that 


Discussion of the Historical System in Extenso 239 

he is meaning in the sphere of Functions of Worship. Jerome 
would hardly deny to the Bishop of his own day either Appeal, or 
Buie over Elders, but in the sphere of Worship he means that the 
Presbyter can baptize, preach, celebrate and possibly confirm. In 
the Alexandrian Church of which Jerome is speaking, this was 
done by Unction and Laying on of Hands. The Bishop conse¬ 
crated the oil, and the Presbyters could do all the rest. Jerome 
is not in accord with the rest of antiquity, if he should mean to 
deny a distinction in the matter of confirmation as well as ordi¬ 
nation. In History we see not only the keeping of the Scriptural 
distinctions between the two orders, but even a tendency to take 
away from Presbyters, and lay on Bishops, extra honor in the 
Functions of Worship. 

The question of ordination, as seen in History, must be in¬ 
vestigated as well as the paucity of evidence in first centuries al¬ 
lows, and in this connection we must recall our former discussions 
of ordination according to the Scriptures. It will be recalled, 
that we concluded that we fail to find in Scripture evidence of 
the same man being carried through three ordinations, but rather 
the evidence seemed to indicate that while there were three ranks 
there were no promotions from rank to rank. How in later His¬ 
tory we find just the opposite. There were three grades, and a 
man entered the Ministry as Deacon, and passed up by successive 
ordinations. At the very least, the later centuries carried the 
customs of Scripture and early times to a degree of development 
not originally seen. The Key to this process seems found, when 
Jerome tells how it was decreed that Bishops should be elected 
from the Presbyters, and put over them. This would mean we 
would ordinarily think, an Ordination (just as if a Deacon should 
be made Presbyter); and, if so, the bridge between Scripture and 
History would be easily crossed. For while in Scripture a Local 
worker is not seen passing to become a General worker, yet when, 
in. History the General worker becomes localized, and this decree 
causes the promotion of one of the Local Presbyters, we would 
see all things harmonized by an ordination to the “higher grade/* 
as St. Jerome calls it. Even if we do not actually see promotions 
in Scripture we could not construe that fact to actually bar pro¬ 
motions. Jerome shows that the promotion to the “higher grade ’ 1 


240 


Analytics of Church Government 


took place for Alexandria as early as “St. Mark the Evangelist/ 1 
and his words “It was decreed throughout the world” must have 
reference to the same period, both because of his reference to St. 
Mark, and because of Ignatius’ formerly quoted words as to the 
fact of settlement. So therefore we must conceive the failure to 
see the system of promotion in Scripture as due not to any rule 
against it, but to circumstances that made it only occasional at 
so early a period. 

But as a fact, Jerome rises up as a seemingly positive witness 
against the rightness of a further ordination after the grade of 
Presbyter, alleging that it was not Scriptural, and that the custom 
of Alexandria was against it. Thus we are face to face with the 
question (now very old) did the Church wrongly place an ordi¬ 
nation between the Presbyter and this promoted Presbyter called 
Bishop, thus causing an unscriptural distinction; or is St. Jerome 
wrong? First, let us understand Jerome. In his day Bishops 
could ordain, while Presbyters could not. He recognizes this, 
for he says “what can a Bishop do, that a Presbyter may not do 
except ordination?” But he says this comes of “The Church's 
custom” and not “the Lord’s disposition” because Presbyters and 
Bishops were Scripturally of the same degree. Then he further 
alleges that in Alexandria the Presbyters simply acclaimed the one 
taken out of their number as Bishop; and this too, from the time 
of St. Mark, to that of the Bishop’s Heraclas and Dionysius (Hera- 
clas was the pupil of Origen, and succeeded Demetrius, who was 
the Bishop of Alexandria in Origen’s time.) 

There can he no manner of doubt about Jerome’s position. 
He accepts the ecclesiastical arrangements of his day, hut he de¬ 
clares them brought about by “Church custom” and not of Scrip¬ 
tural authority. He argues his case. Bishops and Presbyters were 
identical in Scripture, is the burden of his remarks in his “Com¬ 
mentary on Titus ” and in his Epistle “Ad Evangelium ,” where 
he is asserting the dignity and ancient prerogatives of Presbyters, 
he brings forward the Alexandrian Church as illustrating the 
original ways of things, when Bishops were first separated from 
the rest of the Presbyters and “set over” them. This way was, 
until Heraclas, like the way an army made its General, or the 
Deacons their Archdeacons. 


Discussion of the Historical System in Extenso 241 

But while his position is clear, it cannot be said that his 
statement of the procedure in the Church of Alexandria is suffi¬ 
ciently explicit to enable us to judge of its full status. There 
may have been something which would explain the divergence of 
Alexandria from the rest of the world that Jerome has not told 
us. However Jerome certainly means that there was no ordina¬ 
tion when one of the Alexandrian Presbyters was set over the 
rest, and, for Jerome, this bears witness that originally there was 
none. 

Clearly Jerome's whole position is, that the ordination which 
the Church placed between the two grades, and also the bestowal 
of exclusive right to administer ordination which the Church made 
to belong exclusively to the Bishop, are “Church customs ” only. 
But at every stroke of his pen, he brings out the customs of the 
Church, and shows both that the Church of Alexandria differed 
from the rest of the world, and that he, Jerome had the customs 
of the Church opposed to himself. 

Apart from Jerome we know that ordination was administered 
to a Presbyter when he was made Bishop, but Jerome’s quotation 
of Alexandria, shows what was done elsewhere than at Alexandria. 
Jerome too, is most valuable as a witness to the fact that the 
distinction of grades as an actuality, however marked or made by 
ceremonies, took place very early everywhere, and at Alexandria 
from the time of St. Mark. 

Now, if the actuality of difference was to exist between Pres¬ 
byters and Bishops, there surely could be no evil in using ordi¬ 
nation rather than acclamation. Jerome shows that at Alexandria 
there was the difference, but he claims there was no ordination. 
We can not but believe the custom of the rest of Christianity was 
better than that of Alexandria, so far as that is concerned. The 
real evil, if evil was committed, was in the taking power from 
Presbyters and creating another order over them, however it wa3 
done as regards ceremonies. In Scripture there was but one or¬ 
dination because a local worker was not made a General worker, 
but if he had been promoted would it surprise us to find it done 
by means of a religious rite in addition to simple appointment? 
Beyond question, however, Jerome is a hostile witness against 
our main position in this chapter. We can use him to help us in 


242 


Analytics of Church Government 


some important matters, but he emphatically says the Church 
customs which we have treated were not Scriptural. He does 
not claim usurpation for the beginning, and distinctly says it was 
by decree, and throughout the world, and at Alexandria as early 
as St. Mark, yet still it was not of “Christ's dispositions" but 
the “Church's custom." He does not stand for the rights of Pres¬ 
byteries, but for the rights of Presbyters, yet he sees in Bishops 
not a perpetuation of old things, but a beginning of new, not 
Apostles localized but actual Presbyters given greater responsi¬ 
bilities because of special needs. 

Against Jerome’s opinion stands the “customs of the Church." 
She, according to himself, had no unworthy motives. The Here- 
siarchs made a need, and to meet it, she adopted the Episcopal sys¬ 
tem. She ordained them probably because she was religious. But 
it must be remembered that what the Church did, was done, with 
the facts in plain view, and at a time when probably even Aopstles 
were living, while Jerome is the digger up of dusty records, and 
the one puzzling over century old documents'. Jerome makes 
nothing of the General workers of Scriptural days. He forgets 
Clement’s words “Those appointed by them, or afterwards by other 
eminent men He ignores the “Apostles” of the Didache. He 
fails to catch the import of St. Mark’s abiding or settling at Alex¬ 
andria. He catches at the identity of the words Bishop and 
Presbyter in Scripture, keeps his mind fixed on the local workers, 
finds the “decree" as to the change in the local Churches, reads 
some exceptional conditions formerly existing at Alexandria as the 
rule of early days (and perhaps reads it wrong), and comes to the 
statement that “the Bishops should know that they are greater 
than the Presbyters, rather by custom than the truth of a dispo¬ 
sition of the Lord.” Yet were there not men after the Apostles 
who could appoint Presbyters, as Clement shows? If Jerome 
asks “what can a Bishop do that a Presbyter may not do, except 
ordination?" as the essential of difference between the orders 
in his day, can it not be said that the distinguished or “eminent 
men who came afterwards” (after the Apostles) had that same 
personal power, as early as the first century, and that too, by Apos¬ 
tolic arrangement? Truly, if we must have Jerome or the Custom 
of the Church against us, let it be Jerome, with himself as wit- 


Discussion of the Historical System in Extenso 243 

ness that the Custom speaks in our favor. And since Jerome is 
certainly a hostile witness, it is well that he leaves us no doubt as 
to where we can find the one opposed to him. 

But if Jerome shows that the Church’s motives were good, 
and that in religious spirit she ordained this Bishop, yet he leaves 
us wondering from what source came the power to make the differ¬ 
ence we see between the orders. (He is not right in saying that 
the difference lay only in ordination; for if the Bishop was "set 
over the rest” that implies some degree of Rule and Appellate 
Jurisdiction, and this was the fact as well as right to ordain.) 
As Ambrosiaster says, "It never was lawful or permitted that an 
inferior should ordain a superior, for nobody gives us what he 
has not received.” Where then was the right of ordination vested 
before? Not in a single Presbyter, for no one ever taught or 
heard of that as a tenable position. In the body of Presbyters 
then? In that case, the body must have had powers not derived 
from its members, but transcending them—collectively they must 
have had a function which no one of them singly possessed. St. 
Jerome now makes them (at Alexandria which he takes as the 
type for right procedure) by simple acclamation pass this power 
to a single man. In truth, he either had it before, or thus re¬ 
ceived it. But when Jerome tells of acclamation, he is not claim¬ 
ing for that any virtue, but using it to show that the Presbyter 
had the power already, and of right. Jerome and every other man 
must choose in such a situation between the rocks of—Acclamation 
as a source of Authority in the Church; Right of a single Pres¬ 
byter to ordain; and Possession by a body of greater power than 
any member. And, since Jerome would certainly rule out the 
Acclamation idea, he would doubtless be found, like many another 
balancing first on one foot, and then on the other, claiming a 
great deal for the Order of Presbyters but never sure whether the 
powers vest in the man or the body, the officer or the order, the 
Presbyter or the Presbytery. 

The Church’s "Custom’ ’ on the other hand is easily explained. 
From the first she believed in Authority from above, in men, and 
in ordination. 

The explanation of the Alexandria mystery is doubtless along 
the line of the glimpse that Epiphanius gives us of several "Con- 


244 


Analytics of Church Government 


gregations” in Alexandria. The heads of these may have been of 
true Episcopal powers, and the Bishop of Alexandria really a kind 
of Metropolitan. Its early history may not have been closely in¬ 
vestigated by Jerome. The old word “Presbyter” may have held 
its place to the confusion of a man living so late as the end of the 
fourth century. But all this depends on the Scholars. 


part 1111 

Bearings a nr De&ucttons 


1 




















































i 



















CHAPTER I 


Discussions of flRo&ern Systems 

I—The Papal System 

Not only is there no trace of an Autocratic System in the 
early ages of Christianity, both the Scriptural and the Historical 
divisions, but such a system was impossible. 

We know exactly the conditions which made the Papacy an 
actuality, whatever in the previous years the mere theory may have 
found to rest itself upon. 

Rule over Apostles, and after they passed, Rule over Bishops 
is as essential to the Autocratic Theory, as Rule over Elders is to 
the Episcopal. We must find conditions that allow it before we 
can allege the thing itself. 

Now the steps which led to the Papacy are the steps which 
brought conditions enabling Rule over Bishops; and the Church 
did not grow into forms admitting this, till certain gradual 
changes forced themselves into permanence. 

As long as there were but a few Christians amid large masses 
of heathen. Heresy was dealt with locally, because it was natural 
and possible, but when Christians covered the earth, Heresies were 
no longer local, and could no longer be dealt with locally. Then 
too, again, Heresies changed from being well marked, gross, easily 
detected and defined errors, to the subtle and intricate theories 
of the age of Councils; from the condition of a system in itself, 
to that of a secret sore in the heart of orthodoxy; from the claims 
of men to be new Incarnations of the Holy Ghost, to assertions of 
distinctions and identities within the profound region of Christs’s 
twofold Nature. These exceedingly refined forms, and this wide¬ 
spread existence of Heresy drove the Churches not only to unity 
of decree, but effective excommunication. 

In rising to meet such attacks by the only means of which 
she could think, the Church brought into existence for the first 
time the machinery that allowed Rule over Bishops. 

As the system of Defence became perfected, the machinery 


248 


Analytics of Church Government 


lent itself to the conditions enabling Eule over Bishops by one 
Euler. Jerusalem sank into weakness; Antioch and Alexandria 
became at times leaders of Heresies; the Euler must come from 
Constantinople, or Eome; and secular conditions united with re¬ 
ligious prestige, and made it, so far as the West was concerned, 
Eome. When the Patriarchal crowning of the Provincial System 
appeared, the end drew very near; and yet still there remained the 
to this day, unsettled battle between the two great rivals. Between 
the Universal Father and the Ecumenical Bishop the strife lasted 
till, unable to find the long sought spot of Heresy on the garment 
of either, the thunderbolts of excommunication were launched on 
any grounds remotely available. Then in the West came Barbar¬ 
ism and Feudalism to complete the Eule over Bishops; while in 
the East settlement of Creed was taken to be the call to regard ail 
things as ready for Crystalization, which the dying of the Empire 
aided from the secular side of things. In early days withdrawal 
of communion was the customary extreme of pressure against a 
Bishop or a Church, but later the great weapon of delivery to 
Satan, excommunication, and that, too, with anathema, was re¬ 
sorted to; and for this, Authority needed to perch very high. 
When it came to such a procedure between two little Bishops of ad¬ 
jacent towns there was very little Eule about it, but when the 
Patriarch of Eome or Alexandria thundered from the throne in a 
Council, it was a different matter, and it is very clear that Heresy 
made Provincial and General Councils, and Councils made Pa¬ 
triarchs. If the Ssytem never reached the point of just one Euler 
foi the world actually, it reached the point of claims undoubtedly. 

But apart from the sight of the machinery by which Eule over 
Bishops was actually effected, and the impossibility of that particu¬ 
lar kind of machinery being put in place sooner than it was, it is 
when we try to imagine what other machinery could possibly have 
been devised to secure Eule over Bishops, in the first two centuries, 
let us say, that we are brought up against the fact that the whole 
mode of first establishing Christianity precluded any such Eule 
over Bishops from being attempted. 

In the Apostles* time it would have been Eule over Apostles, let 
us remember, and it is only after the settling of the General 
workers, and the birth of local Episcopacy, that the question 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


249 


takes the form of Rule over Bishops. This very change to local 
Episcopacy would mean a change in any system that attempted to 
meet the new condition. The actual Church system for Rule over 
the People, and for Rule over the Presbyters too, we see, and we 
see also how the first provision for Rule over Presbyters was at¬ 
tended with great difficulties and after a while was modified to suit 
the enlarged conditions; but what possible plan there could have 
been devised to secure Rule over Apostles, and then Bishops, is a 
matter of serious perplexity. In this matter we are not aided by 
the sight of any skeleton even of an actual system. It was not, as 
a fact, attempted, and we know not along what lines of centraliza¬ 
tion, or delegation, or Conciliar action, it could have been tried. 
If, from the beginning, the system of planting Christianity had 
been different, a different system of control might have been ini¬ 
tially begun, but with the system of planting arranged, as it was, 
by the scattering process, under stress of secular conditions; and 
with Churches springing up in remote regions through the retui-n 
of Jewish worshippers converted during stay at Jerusalem, the 
planting system itself could not be systematized. Assuming the 
planting, what law of control at centre, or from centre by deputy- 
ship was possible? 

When we come to actualities, we can find nowhere in the 
Acts or Epistles, or Early Church writers, any signs of provision 
for a system of Rule over Bishops. We have been in all these last 
chapters trying to trace the system of Rule over Elders, and found 
the guiding facts few enough, but beyond the facts that a Council 
could be held for common consideration of any question, and that 
St. Paul seems to have exercised some control over Timothy and 
Titus for instance, we are at a loss to know what data we Could 
gather for Rule over Bishops from Scripture; while in History, 
the attempt at conferences, remonstrances more or less formal, and 
finally the beginning of Councils of Bishops appear, and the latter 
develops into a system which, as we saw, afterwards bore fruit. 

The study of the beginning of Councils shows how far the 
Church was from designing the end. It is Cyprian who more than 
any one else adopts the Conciliar plan, but it is Cyprian also who 
maintains the equality of Bishops in and out of Councils, and the 
aim of Councils "To order all things with the religiousness of a 


250 


Analytics of Church Government 


common consultation,” Epis. XIII. It was not quite the age for 
the “Brutum fulmcn.'* 

Here we must distinguish between the necessity for the 
Church to deal with Heresy, and the use of the machinery devised 
for that purpose to accomplish any other object in its desire. 

One of the dangers of a foreign war is, the creation of an 
army that may be used against the citizens. Our Lord’s arrange¬ 
ment for defence against Heresy seems to have been Scripture, 
the Gift and Guidance of the Holy Ghost, and the Balance between 
Authority and Consent which is in His own keeping. 

Councils legitimately used are for the purpose of securing 
Consent. When they are turned into canons, (sic) of Authority 
they destroy Consent. The English Church has found a way out, 
by refusing to acknowledge the Authority of a Council, unless it 
has the Consent of the Church, but the only real safeguard against 
the tyranny of Council, is the liberty of Bishops. The Master 
did not put the Apostles under Rule. As we saw in a former 
place, Councils must have an adequate Executor unless they be 
Councils for Consultation appealing by weight, not Authority, to 
Consent. 

And, after all, the Roman System must be judged in the 
light of the Balance, between Authority and Consent. If our 
Lord made no provision for Rule over Apostles, it was, we should 
say, that the seat of Authority should be too broad for Authority 
to concentrate into tyranny. Authority must have some scope for 
concentration, but if that power of concentration be too great, if 
the seat be in itself closed to the working of Consent within itself, 
as well as Consent without, that worst of evils, next to anarchy, 
tyranny is provided for. 

How does the Papal System provide for Consent. That it 
provides many loop holes for escape from Authority is easily seen, 
but when once Authority gathers itself, Consent is reduced to zero. 
Even if practical workings reduce somewhat the result, yet the 
theory is, (and the theory is but the clear logic of the premises), 
the Consent stands at absolute Zero. 

The Papal System recognizes emphatically—Grace in Au¬ 
thority, even to the point of official infallibility, and impeccabil¬ 
ity—its corollary, but for that Faith that dwells in Consent 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


251 


whereby God brings even resistance to Authority, it knows no tol¬ 
erance. If Consent will blindly follow Authority, that is well, in 
the papal view, but if it resists, what is Authority for but compul¬ 
sion? 

Every function of Ministry was by the Master given in so 
many words to each of the Apostles, and the utmost that the spe¬ 
cial words to St. Peter could be construed to mean by any one, 
would be in the province of “Feeding” or of “Binding and Loos¬ 
ing,” both of which look from God to man. Yet in the Papal 
System the Reader, the Singer, the Offerer of Alms or of Prayer 
not to speak of the one who “offers the Gift;” the Eucharist, look¬ 
ing from man to God , must hold his Ministry from the Head of 
the system under plea of special gifts to St. Peter. 

The autocracy of Pharaoh, of Nebuchadnezzar, of Antiochus, 
and of the Romans, was the terror of the Jews, but it is this form 
that the Papal System claims was followed by Christ. The Sheik 
system of the Arabs, the Judge system of Moses and Joshua, the 
mild Monarchy of Saul, and David, and the successors of Reho- 
boam after the lesson of the revolt of Israel, the High Priest and 
Council system of the Maccabees, all of these are considered 
trampled under foot as too weak in Authority for the strenuous 
Church of God whose “little finger must be thicker than any of the 
predecessor’s loins” even if it out-Herod Herod. 

Finally, there is not a principle of all these seen in our analy¬ 
sis that is held in moderation. Even that which we saw in the 
beginning, that Faith persuades people to God’s Church, and keeps 
them there is swallowed up in the balancing idea that by Grace 
they are placed there, and bound there as by fetters, and with no 
chance of release unless cast out by the one who “binds on earth, 
and it is bound in Heaven.” 

It is to be noted that if we take the three spheres of Rule, 
Care of Souls, and Ministration, spheres in which, as we saw, the 
functions of Bishops are greater than those of Presbyters, then 
we have an analysis as follows: In the sphere of Ministration 
there is no function above that of Bishop. Not even an Apostle 
could do more, for there is no room above except by manufacturing 
functions, when baptizing, administering, and ordaining Bishops 
are past. 


252 


Analytics of Church Government 


In the sphere of care of souls, the Zenith was reached when 
St. Peter and St. Paul, each of them alike, smote the offender with 
the visible sentence of God. And if this be not the Zenith, but de¬ 
cision in matter of doctrine (for Heresy is an offence in the care 
of souls) then surely St. Paul is the equal of St. Peter, as the rec¬ 
ord shows. Then for St. Peter to surpass the others we only have 
left the sphere of Rule (Teaching and Preaching, when once au¬ 
thority is received, are matters of personal powers). If St. Peter 
then was Chief-Pastor in what did his pastoral office prove su¬ 
perior? Feeding is not exactly “Rule over,” but let us take it in 
that way, since nothing is left. 

It is well to see then that the precise sphere in which the su¬ 
perior powers of the Pope could lie, at the very most, is the sphere 
of Rule. But the powers which are claimed extend into every 
sphere of every function. 

In conclusion we can stand or fall with the correctness of 
these assertions. Christ made no provision for Rule over Apos¬ 
tles; the Apostles made none for Rule over Bishops; Consent is 
the “Executor” of Councils whenever the limit of a Bishop’s au¬ 
thority is passed; the Papal System in destroying Consent pre¬ 
cludes all possibility of Godly government, since even God does 
not govern that way, in Heaven or on Earth; autocracy stood bo 
the Jew, and ever since, must stand to all, for bondage, captivity, 
desecration of their Temple, and Herod,—who though he builded 
in God’s name more grandly than Solomon, yet ruled as the despot 
of—Rome. 


II—The Congregational System 

This System of course, lies at the opposite extreme. Where 
Rome exalts Authority to the death of Consent, this system exalts 
Consent at the expense of Authority. 

Let us examine the foundations of the Congregational System. 
Historically there was under Browne and then Barrowe, an effort 
to combine the idea of rule by Elders and rule by the Congregation. 
And, after these men, there was an attempt to harmonize with 
Presbyterian systems to greater or less degree. But, finally, the 
mingling of the two ideas of rule was seen not to be possible, and 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


253 


the polity blossomed out into pure Congregationalism. Even the 
Conciliar principle is set aside by the out and out Congregation- 
alists, viz.: the Baptists, and that of Association alone admitted. 
The principle of Fellowship, supplmenting that of Congregational 
independence, is expected to supply all needs beyond the limits of 
each Church. 

Now the right of a man to self-control does not give, but pre¬ 
cludes the right to control others, so when we have a number of 
such units brought together, the problem is presented of how to 
get a higher unit than the individual, and there is no possibly con¬ 
sistent way but one (which somewhat in fact compromises the 
original idea) that of majority rule. 

The Consent of a large number is taken as calling for, if not 
compelling the Consent of the rest. By this agreement the Con¬ 
gregation can be made a unit. Then, if these units could do the 
same thing, the system could continue to grow and become quite 
complex, but the need for the uniting of Congregations is not felt 
as much as the need for the unity of the individuals that make the 
Congregation, and so these further steps are omitted by those who 
jealously guard the rights of the Congregation. 

The submission or acquiescence of a minority is always a sub¬ 
jection to rule, but there is no other way to secure unity, and with 
the right of the minority to separate fully conceded, the com¬ 
promise of principle, thus far, is essential; while to carry it fur¬ 
ther, and into the higher unions, might strike at the liberty of that 
unit, which is made the actual basis of the System. 

But while all this must be taken into consideration, it must be 
remembered that it is not claimed that Scripturally the individual 
is any unit at all, but most specifically the Congregation is chosen 
to be such. The Congregation is both beginning and end. Noth¬ 
ing is below it, or above it. Each Congregation is the equal re¬ 
pository of whatever there is. It is only when this Congregation 
comes to act with regard to the units of which itself is made, that 
the principles are seen to reach down. For, if the Congregation, 
because of rights of self-control, can not allow itself to be con¬ 
trolled, on what basis could it claim control over the individual 
except by violation of its dearest principles? All of which is said 
to bring out the fact that Consent is everywhere in this system the 


254 


Analytics of Church Government 


actual basis of Authority, and the latter only exists by and through 
and in the former. And as a matter of fact, in practical working, 
the individuals are consulted at every step. Themselves are over 
themselves, and the minority is governed under the theory of 
"majority rule, ,, and not under the theory of right of control. 
Consent can put on the face of Authority, but it is actually very 
different. 

The idea that Grace puts us in the "Churches” and binds us 
there, is reduced to its lowest terms ? and the idea that Faith alone 
keeps us there exalted to its highest. 

The idea that Grace is in Authority amounts to nothing. 
Authority merely formulates the propositions of Consent. 'God’s 
workings in the Faith which leads to acceptance or rejection of 
the formularies is the sheet anchor of the system. The yea and 
nay vote is all in all. There is indeed no vehicle of Authority, 
for the reception of Grace, over and opposite the vehicle of Con¬ 
sent by the action of Faith. 

The Functions of Ministration have lost much of their sem¬ 
blance to the old idea of personal possession by instruments of 
God, in that of being perquisites of all, representatively brought to 
a focus. 

The type of Polity is more extreme than any presented to the 
Master by sight or tradition. The Master’s tremendous words of 
bestowal, and the immense reach of the power bestowed on the 
officers whom He personally commissioned, are treated as having 
no bearing on the future of His Church’s system. 

The appointment system so emphasized by the Apostles is set 
aside for the Elective which was clearly its complement not its 
antagonist. 

The strain against the fair meaning of words like Hegoume- 
nos, poroestos , poimen, Tcubernetis, presbuteros, and episcopos, is 
out of all reason. 

The grounds for this system in History are negatived at every 
turn. It is simply out of the question from first to last. The 
Apostles of the Didache, the appointing system seen in Clement, 
the "Presbyteries” of Ignatius (to say nothing of the Bishops) all 
the traditions given by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hegissipus, Polv- 
crates, and Jerome, as well as Eusebius—the whole and entire 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


255 


body of records run counter to it, with a set of tide simply over¬ 
whelming. 

The History of Heresy in the first six hundred years of the 
Church’s life shows a struggle of the most terrible nature, and it 
is only necessary to imagine what would have happened under a 
system incapable of concentration, while the leaders of Heresy 
could gather their thousands in solid phalanx, in order to see how- 
fortunate it was that, as Jerome states, leaders could also be put 
forward to meet them. If a heretic could contend on the field of 
majority rule he would have ju9t the conditions he would choose. 
Again, the problem of self-government is always attended with 
innumerable difficulties among a savage or ignorant people. In 
civil affairs where the custom of popular government is to create 
strong centres of control even for the most civilized, thought 
breaks down at the idea of testing the system among savages; and 
would the Church rush in to leave every group as autonomous? 
If in modern times we have seen some testing of the Congrega¬ 
tional system among such people, let us remember that it has not 
been without the Board system, and its pecuniary method of con¬ 
trol, so effectively used by all systems, as a matter of fact, in these 
days of money power. 

Once more, the right of appeal must find less recognition in 
this system than in any other, for the Congregation is both begin¬ 
ning and end for all things. Let us remember that the great de¬ 
sideratum in any system of discipline, is to secure for the one 
condemned the feeling that it is of Cod that his punishment 
comes—a very hard thing. Trial by the mass, and conviction 
without appeal is not conducive to such a feeling. The loss of this 
particular one of the Special Functions, is in itself a weighty 
charge against the Congregational System, and is one of the 
spheres in which Consent can never rise to the dignity of Author- 
ity. 

Finally, even though Scripture be written it must yet be un¬ 
derstood and explained, and in the ages of Heresy the definition 
of Orthodoxy is the most delicate of operations. If the Heretic 
is to be condemned, the true interpretation must be set forth. If 
discipline be in the hands of the Congregation, interpretation of 
the Law and Gospel must be too. But how unprepared for such a 


256 Analytics of Church Government 

burden a Congregation must be? In its jealousy of personal 
liberty and Congregational independence, the System sacrifices 
the power needed for the great broad work of God in the world, 
and throughout the ages. 

Ill— The Presbyterian System 

The problem that this System has to face is the location of 
the Special Functions. Rejecting the idea of Congregational rule, 
and denying the existence of any order above that of the Presby¬ 
ters, it is compelled to utilize the local workers—the order of 
Presbyters as the recipient and holder of all official powers. But 
to do this requires some adjustments. There are powers of Rule 
over Elders, of Appelate jurisdiction, and Ordination, which no 
Presbyter could have if taken by himself. How then could the 
order hold that which no individual of the order could hold ? The 
theory is advanced that “jointly” Presbyters could hold what 
“severally” they could not. This, of course, means that these 
powers, the very highest of all, are lodged in a body, or, let us call 
it a Council. 

This raises a question: What is there in the principle of As¬ 
sociation that can create power? In order to see clearly our mat¬ 
ter in hand let us leave out of consideration powers that might 
be involved in territorial conditions, and take only those of the 
so-called “Sessions” which answers to such local bodies as were 
formed, in Scripture times, by the Presbyters who existed in each 
Church, to the number of several, (it is claimed), at least. This 
form of Presbytery, and proof-model of the larger form, pro¬ 
fessedly has powers not belonging to a single Presbyter. Even if 
called powers of “jurisdiction” yet they are, some of them at 
least, the same as powers of “Order.’ ’ And to narrow the ques¬ 
tion for clearness sake still more, we will select one power—that 
of Ordination for discussion. 

The Presbytery that is said to have ordained Timothy, is 
said to be proved by the fact that there were several Presbyters 
in each Church, (some “Ruling Elders,” and some that “labored 
in the word and doctrine.”) These Presbyters then constituted 
a local body, and could ordain. Does then the power of Ordi- 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


257 


nation come from the principle of Association; or is it a power of 
the Presbytery as a body, and only to be exercised by the body? 
If we say the latter, then we have something definite to go on. 
We have a gift of power to a body. But, can three or more 
Presbyters, not of such a body but just informally meeting to¬ 
gether, or being on hand, ordain? Then, that would be power 
springing from Association since none could, singly, do it, but to¬ 
gether, they could. Which position is true? Furthermore, it 
would be seen to be power of “Order” not of “jurisdiction.” No 
system ought to stand on either one of two legs. These great 
Functions which the Apostles wielded as their own special func¬ 
tions, must be seen to rest definitely either on the Order of Pres¬ 
byters, or on a body specially created to hold them. As it happens, 
the principle of Association depends on the powers of Consent, 
and those of the body on Authority from above, so the range of the 
dilemma is wide, and the legs far apart, 

But after all, the real under-pinning of the System is un¬ 
doubtedly, the body, and the accent all there. Bodies are formed, 
(and variously called) all formed of Presbyters, which bodies 
have more power than any Presbyter; and their powers are not 
treated as those that come from any voluntary association, but 
as those of a body authoritatively constituted from above, and from 
the source above drawing its powers, and, also to it, acknowledging 
its responsibility. 

So then let us conclude that in the Presbyterian System we 
have an instance of a body or Council set over the Church and 
holding the Special Functions. 

Now Councils are organs of Consent and not of Authority. 
Here lies the fatal mistake of the System on the philosophical 
side. If Councils in the Apostles’ day were organized to create 
or assert Authority, we would have only the one of Jerusalem to 
prove it by. But, they came together to “consider of this mat¬ 
ter.” The proceedings show plainly a consultation, and the “de¬ 
cree” of the Elders of Jerusalem (and probably the brethren 
also) must be seen in the light of weight rather than that of 
Authority, so far at least as the other Churches of Syria were 
concerned. Plainly these Apostles did not need Authority, and 
at best the Council could only have the Special Functions. No 


258 


Analytics of Church Government 


‘more far reaching mistake could be made than to so minconstrue 
the debate and decision reached then and there, as to deem it an 
attempt to gain Authority. Unanimity among themselves, ap¬ 
proval of men of all orders, the weight of the Mother Church, 
these were the forces sought to be made explicit. And to press 
the matter to the very crux, let us ask here, as has been done 
before, what Executor the Council could find ? As long as a Coun¬ 
cil appeals by weight, its ground is secure, but let it once ap¬ 
peal to the unconsenting as Authority, and there is not an Exe¬ 
cutive that can be imagined. All can recall the words “Let him 
be anathema,” the efforts to utilize the Emperor, the placing of 
power in the hands of Metropolitans and Patriarchs, the rise of 
the Papacy, and also the failure of all these. The weight of 
Councils remained enormous, but their power was most success¬ 
fully defied. They were never intended to be organs of Author¬ 
ity, but of consultation, agreement, harmony, in short—Consent. 
The base they afford for Authority is too broad for that faculty. 
Its very breadth is evidence that its function is to secure Con¬ 
sent ere Authority attempts action. Authorities can test Con¬ 
sent before or afterwards. Councils enable it to be done before¬ 
hand. Finally, the oft heard phrase—The Authority of Coun¬ 
cils, General Councils especially, grows out of the idea that what 
the whole Church agrees to, must have more behind it, than the 
opposite; and the criticisms of the Latrocinium, for instance, 
turns not on the technical points, but on the moral and religious 
character of the proceedings, proving the test of weight. 

However, this is to be certainly conceded, or rather asserted 
as a part of the claims here made, that Authority makes an ap¬ 
peal to Consent by means of Councils and in so far they are 
organs of Authority, and such Authority as proceeds out of Con¬ 
sent, for there is such, is thus gathered by these, but this marks 
the extent. How fatal a mistake then it is to make such an 
organ the resting place for Authority, not for its appeals, but 
for executions. 

Now, if this system allowed Authority to spring from be¬ 
low, that is out of Consent, vesting the chief powers in a Council, 
that would be consistent ; but when the position is stated, that 
the gift of Christ was to the “whole Church,” so far as power 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


259 


is concerned, and to the officers, so far as its " exercisef* is in¬ 
volved, we have a further departure from the Tightness of things, 
for such a view of the origin of power, makes both power and 
its exercise come from above. 

There can he no doubt that this System does view power as 
given by Christ to the “whole Church,” and Ministry as com¬ 
ing from Him also; and this being the case, it is a most patent 
anomaly to vest the highest power in councils. The very essence 
of power—derivation from above—is the idea of Stewardship and 
Responsibility. 

So, too again, Grace in Authority is an idea truly welcome 
in this System, but the Council has many minds and hearts, and 
is, therefore, liable to sway and change, as votes change. 

The location of Authority in respect to its highest powers 
in Councils has yet another evil in that besides injuring Author¬ 
ity, it robs Consent of a stronghold. There can be no doubt 
whatsoever that the Presbyterian System is one of the strong 
governments. All powers are exercised for the whole by the 
officers. The officers form the organs of exercise it may be said, 
and just as an animal walks with its legs or eats with its mouth, 
so the Church, to which the power is given, exercises all those 
powers through its officers, except that election is only superin¬ 
tended by the officers, and perhaps a few other things are left 
to the people. Ruling Elders lead a lay life, and may be in a 
measure regarded as laymen, but the Councils are made up of 
officers only. Thus the play of Consent is small. If, then, Coun¬ 
cils constitute a proper place for Consent, according to Scripture, 
the making of them the throne of Authority does a two fold 
wrong. 

•As an entrenchment a Council is a strong fort. Poor Con¬ 
sent not only loses its own, but must storm a stronghold in 
its battles. Are the officers, however he organs for Consent as 
well as for Authority? If so, the annihilation of Consent is al¬ 
most as easy as in the Church of Rome, the difference being 
conspicuously this—that Rome has a strong executive, and Coun¬ 
cils have only committees. We say committees, for an Elder 
has lost all powers of Jurisdiction, to the Councils, and his pow¬ 
ers of Order are unavailing. His order only avails to enable him 


260 Analytics of Church Government 

to become a member of a committee. He must even find as a 
committee greater strength than as an officer. 

In fact the gift of powers to the “Whole Church” is fair ia 
sound, but under the arrangements, the failure of Councils to 
find adequate executive avails more for the people than all their 
share of the original grant. Of course it must be remembered 
that some of these arrangements are not inherent in the theory 
of government by Presbyters, but they are logical to it, and for 
the main point essential. 

Let us suppose now, that all the Grace which God should give 
to the officers, who stand for Authority, was unheeded, and God 
should begin to work with Consent to withhold its asquiescence 
and even resist, what means would lie open. Are the ways by 
which to avoid convulsions adequate? There would be elections, 
and the always dangerous way of rebellion, but theoretically none 
others. 

There is, however, a consideration that here gains force. In 
the Roman system, the view that Grace puts men under Authority 
and binds them there, is very much a part of the System, but 
with the theory that the “whole Church'* possesses the power, 
and the ministry is only the organ of its exercise, then when 
the wrong exercises by the officers comes (or let us even say there 
arises a dissatisfaction with it) then the resumption by the people 
of the power is primarily a constitutional right instead of an 
unlawful proceeding. (We remember that Clement tells us that 
the Presbyters of Corinth were “ejected” so that assumption by 
the people would be called resumption). 

Does Grace bind or Faith persuade? We cannot but believe 
that the sense of being the real power would weaken the sense 
of obligation to Authority. 

This brings us to consider the idea that power is given to 
the “whole Church.” Surely that is not a correct view. If 
God’s government was by a balance in the degrees of Authority, 
we might look in that direction for the balance of Christ’s Sys¬ 
tem, but it is not. The balance is between Authority and Con¬ 
sent. All Authority is given to the officers, and Consent is left 
full powered in its natural abiding place. 

By election and by Councils, Parochial, Diocesan, Provin- 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


261 


cial and General, Consent can find full play, in the way of peace¬ 
ful assertion; and the inalienable right of Revolution is there for 
the day of insupportable tyranny. The power of Consent is 
greater, if anything, than that of Authority. Authority needs 
to be strong, but Consent needs its avenues all kept open. So 
too Grace puts us under Authority and binds us there, and Faith 
should persuade us and keep us there, but Consent must be held 
as the stronghold of defence, and it is equal to the strain. 

History tells of no tyranny until Consent was first allowed 
to throw away its power, or yield it to Authority. When it 
comes to destroying the particular Authorities that oppress us, 
by Revolution, in order to rectify, or to abandoning the Church 
of God to set up our own, or to live in another, the first is better 
than the last, but the right of Revolution does not rest upon the 
basis of a gift of Authority to the “whole Church,” but upon 
the natural right to give or withhold Consent, and judgment as 
to when the limit of endurance is reached, and the wisdom of 
the means employed. 

As to this matter of the power being given to the “whole 
Church” and only “its exercise” to the officers, we can plainly 
see that there is a large promise of instability in such an ar¬ 
rangement. If the Church has power, then its de facto gift is 
the great point always to be kept in view. Even though it create 
new offices, yet if only it bestow upon those holding them, the 
“exercise” of power it would be hard to show that such exercise 
would not be perfectly valid. Thus, if having the gift of power, 
the Church should inaugurate a Methodist or a Congregational 
system, to exercise that power, it would be possible to allege that 
such a system was not after the Scriptural pattern (from the 
Presbyterian standpoint of course), but hardly possible to empty 
it of validity. Only by tying to the gift of power some proviso 
to cover the point—alleging the following of the Scriptural pat¬ 
tern, as a necessary requirmement to validity could the Church 
be held off from drifting to leeward along some such track. The 
Presbyterians to-day recognize the ministry of various bodies on 
precisely such grounds, viz., that in as much as power is given 
to the Church (not the officers), if the body recognize the officers 
that is sufficient; but they are far from admitting that any 


262 


Analytics of Church Government 


“Form of the Christian Temple” is Scriptural, but their own. 
Now, considering how easy it would he for the men to change 
the forms, if only they felt sure of never losing the “power,” we 
can see that such a doctrime almost guarantees changes in the 
course of time amid the stresses of world-changes of all things 
around. 

On the other hand, if the officers are given from above not 
only the right to exercise power, but power itself, not as personal 
but as pertaining to the office, while tyranny and laxity are not 
avoided, yet the element of stability is secured. The office which 
is the seed of the rest will abide; while the body of the Church, 
never having been given power of office, will still possess its 
own inalienable power, which is utterly different from the power 
of office. According to the Presbyterian view, the “whole Church” 
receives the power of office as well as all other powers, but the 
true view is that each part receives its own gift according to 
its own order and functions. The Ministry can far less easily 
change the body, than the body of the Church could change the 
ministry. The powers of the body are those of Consent, great, 
strong and basic—natural and inalienable. They can be claimed 
and seized at any time upon either natural or Scriptural grounds, 
The powers of office are subject to definition and limitation, and 
depend on interpretation. Only when God is deemed to be be¬ 
hind the offices is there any security at all for them. 

Along the lines of Historical forms of government on which 
the Master might have patterned His Church, this System makes 
the mistake of selecting for the chief seat of Authority the one 
that, however valuable as a help, had never had success as the 
main reliance. Councils had proved their value certainly, but 
when had they brought the activity, not to say, aggressiveness 
needed for a struggle for empire? 

The Eoman Senate was even supplemented by Consuls, but 
when the days came when Italy was outgrown, the days of the 
Senate were numbered. If Councils be the Head, then they 
must be either increased in number or enlarged as to representa¬ 
tion; and world government is too great a task for the machinery. 
The fact is that the world is too large and too diverse for any one 
man, or any one thing , to govern , in Church or State. 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


263 


Finally, there is one of the Functions of Ministry that has 
been but little noticed because of desire for as simple a line of 
discussion as possible, but it is nevertheless a Function. It is 
most congruous, and of real importance, that from the seat of 
Authority and Discipline should come the Authoritative Blessing. 
Even if Appeal, and Rule, and Ordination can vest in a Coun¬ 
cil, the Ambassadorial pronouncement in Christ’s stead of His 
great Blessing, must be a personal Function. 

The Pastor is there for local Church, but the Moderator even 
of a great Synod has only the Synod itself to bless, even if he 
summed up in himself the powers of Sjmod. In a Synodically 
governed body, the Blessing from the great Head of the Church 
through the highest seat of Discipline is lost, to its own great 
detriment. 

In conclusion, let it be said, that in aim and purpose no re¬ 
ligious body ever seemed more desirous to be Scriptural in fact, 
anti-historical in spirit, gracious to the people, strong in Author¬ 
ity, careful of the gifts and functions, and chary of change in 
customs, than these same Presbyterial bodies, who have borne 
so much good fruit under their wonderful system; but beginning 
in times of passion and upheaval, pressed by needs, blocked from 
historical paths, casting around for something effective for the 
times—something strong enough to cope with Rome, and firm 
against the tendency of their own liberated peoples, they found 
under the shadow of Calvin’s great name, an interpretation of 
Scripture responding to all their requirements. The chief of these 
requirements was something that depended on no Bishop, but 
maintained Authority. To strengthen the weakness of the Pres¬ 
byterial order by gradations of Councils seemed under the cir¬ 
cumstances the happiest of thoughts. They had all the material 
for the building, and a strong and beautiful building it be¬ 
came. 

The result of it all was, however, that in the very heart of 
the System, they based Authority on the organ of Consent, struck 
down the principle of Stewardship and Responsibility, and ma¬ 
nipulated the Order of Presbyters to purposes which their powers of 
Order did not allow. Making their “joint” powers greater than 
their “several ” they established the increase of power on a per- 


264 


Analytics of Church Government 


fectly untenable basis. And in order to do all this, they had to 
exalt the Ministry vastly, at the expense of the people. If the 
logic of the Papal System was the infallible Pope, the logic of 
the Presbyterian is the supremacy of Council—but Council en¬ 
tirely perverted from its Scriptural design. 


CHAPTER II 


Discussion of flDofcern Systems—Continued 

IV— The Episcopal System. 

The study of Scriptural and Historical facts taught us as 
regards the four systems. First: That the Congregational System 
could only hope to get a prima facie standing by stripping the 
words hegoumenos, potmen, kubernetes, proestds, presbuteros , and 
episcopos of all their customary force, and also taking away the 
facts of their force as exhibited there. 

Second: That the Papal System can point to no provision for 
Rule over Bishops, whether by Christ, or the Apostles, or the 
Church, until the latter through a system of Councils opened the 
way by means of a Metropolitan or Patriarchal gradation. 

Third: That the Special Functions, lodged by the Presbyte¬ 
rian System in Councils, were not so lodged, and that Councils 
were not instruments of Authority, but organs of Consent, until 
in the struggle with Heresy, and as Councils of Bishops they ac¬ 
quired powers not before possessed: That a smaller foundation 
than the Scriptural warrant for “Presbyteries” could hardly exist, 
and in History there is none until Jerome stands as Authority 
for the existence of “the common Council of the Presbyters/’ 
(whatever kind that was) centuries before his day. 

Fourth: That the Episcopal claims for an order above the 
Presbyters are excellently founded, and both by name and work 
this order is exhibited from first to last. It must indeed be by 
testimony much more scanty than we would like that any posi¬ 
tion can be either attacked or supported, but taken comparatively 
there is no system that begins to fare as well as the Episcopal. 
Let the Roman gather evidence for Rule over Bishops; or the 


266 


Analytics of Church Government 


Presbyterian for the gift of the Special Functions to Presbyte¬ 
ries; or for Ruling Elders; and small as the volume is for three 
orders, it is indeed, voluminous compared to the collections of 
the others. The proof certainly bears upon the actuality of the 
thing sought. The Presbyterians* proof is all in the region of 
inference. “The Elders that Rule well/’ being taken to mean 
a volume of inferences, and “The laying on of the hands of the 
Presbytery’* reaching as far as the entire Polity. 

So, too, the Romanist builds on the text, “Feed my sheep,** 
a wondrous structure of Rule over Apostles.’* But the General 
workers are seen side by side with the local workers, and their 
powers can be studied by acts. The Didache and Ignatius in al¬ 
most the same age as the Scriptures speak out clearly with no 
chance of misunderstanding. The “distinguished or Eminent 
men*’ of Clement can hardly be wrested from the line of Cle¬ 
ment’s own life. The early existence of the three orders every¬ 
where is put beyond cavil from a mass of evidence, which if not 
contemporary is yet near enough to be trusted to speak. 

In short, the whole form of proof for this is different 
from the form necessary for any other. And just to illustrate 
this, we will take an instance. The Presbyterian writers say that 
Clement’s letter shows that Corinth was under a Presbytery of 
their own kind. How? Because no Bishop (in later sense of 
the word) is mentioned, and if there had been a Bishop, etc., 
etc.,—The Episcopal advocate quotes writers who directly state 
that Clement was a Bishop (though not of Corinth of course). 
How inferences are legitimate, but statements are as a rule much 
more convincing. And so it goes all along the line; there is a 
greater appeal to direct evidence by advocates of three orders 
than by the advocates of all the rest put together. 

But not only in volume and directness is there superiority, 
but in weight of the facts themselves. The fact of the existence 
of some kind of Presbytery at Lystra, or at Ephesus, would not 
carry with it the existence of the System claimed, and the existence 
of “Elders who Rule well” does not mean the place assigned 
them; but the existence of General workers with powers like those 
of Timothy and Titus and Barnabas means three orders beyond 
power of controversy. 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


267 


Thus in matter of volume, weight, and directness of evidence, 
the claims for the Episcopal System can go far beyond the others. 
As we have seen, the Congregationalist relies on the failure of 
all proof of Pope, or Bishop, or Presbytery, to leave his as the 
residuum, it being the necessary residuum, if the others fail to 
make out their case. The postive line of his evidence bears 
only on participation by laymen in local affairs. 

In the facts alleged as proving the existence of three orders, 
the advocates of the Papal System, and the Greek Communion 
would agree with the Anglicans, and as the life of the Church 
from early ages gathered around the Episcopate, and even Here¬ 
tical systems adopted the regimen, whatever weight comes from 
such immense unanimity of agreement must be recognized. It 
may be hard to estimate, but undoubtedly it counts. Then, too, 
so far as the survival of the Special Functions go, the Presbyte¬ 
rian advocate must himself approve. His own location of them 
in a Council, after they were personally held by the Apostles, 
may accent his denial of the Episcopal order, but also accents 
the fact that the need for some organ in which they might vest 
was real. But Calvin did not vest Rule, Discipline, and Ordina¬ 
tion in Councils until the break with the past, and the pressure 
of the outlook rendered the situation very critical. The birth of 
the Presbyterian System, and its alleged death in the first and 
second centuries, both weaken the fight it would make against 
the locality of the Special Functions. 

The proper location of the Special Functions raises the ques¬ 
tion, how, in a matter of such vital importance, the Church could 
ever have gotten wrong. There is seldom vagueness about such 
matters, as the seat of Rule, Discipline and Ordination. Igno¬ 
rance, failure in discrimination or forgetfulness may apply to 
some things, but not to such matters as the Special Functions. 
How, if, at first, they were located in the Apostles personally, 
then passed to Councils, and then back to persons, we would have 
something remarkable. St. Jerome states that “the Churches” 
were governed by “the common Councils of the Presbyters,” but 
this is the matter of local government which confessedly was by 
Presbyters (and certainly they were at liberty to have their “com¬ 
mon Councils.”) St. Jerome does not show the nature of such 


268 


Analytics of Church Government 


Councils, or go into the matter of “joint” and “several” pow¬ 
ers, and his language is natural enough under any supposition; 
but it is most clearly thje local Churches. Thus the Special 
Functions are not covered by St. Jerome’s statement, not only as 
regards their local aspect, but still more their general. Where 
were these? In view of the lack of any evidence to specify the 
opposite, their location by the whole Church, so soon as we have 
any documentary light at all, in the persons of Bishops is most 
significant. 

In the light of St. Jerome’s, “It was decreed throughout the 
whole world,” there is no use to talk of usurpation. And as to 
the Church of that age (St. Jerome says, “From Mark the 
Evangelist,” and Ignatius shows the same date practically) doing 
wrong, there is no need whatever for any such accusation. The 
place of the General-workers was being filled by local officers 
raised to the same grade, as proved by their possession of the same 
Special Functions. To accuse any organization of not knowing 
what officers are proper to have, and of wrong processes in ap¬ 
pointing them, is not a right proceeding on any ground but 
that of clear proof. The weight of the action is too great to be 
lifted by anything less. But even if Jerome be taken to prove 
the existence of local Councils, what evidence is there of any 
higher? Yet can the Special Functions vest in local Councils? 
Before wrong can be alleged, the right must stand reasonably plain; 
but after acknowledging the Rule, Discipline and Ordination in¬ 
volved in the Special Functions, and the inadequacy of local 
Councils to handle them, by erecting above Sessions, other 
“Courts,” there is a total failure to produce anything higher as 
existent in these times. A Council (of Presbyters) of higher 
grade than the local Council is altogether the unfindable thing 
of Ecclesiastical History. The whole charge then of wrong do¬ 
ing by the Church rests on the existence not of St. Jerome’s “com¬ 
mon Council of the Presbyters,” but of something more capable 
than these of holding the Special Functions, which, as an exis¬ 
tence has never been produced. 

The Council of Jerusalem was a Council of Apostles who 
Possessed these same Functions—each one, personally. (How let 
one be found composed of Presbyters, (who confessedly did not 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


269 


have the Functions) from the time of Jerusalem to that of the 
well known Councils of Bishops. 

Thus while in Scripture, there are three orders, and in His¬ 
tory three orders, the oft-spoken of “tunnel” between the two, 
in the short intermediate time, is not so dark as claimed. When 
once we clearly separate between the powers of Elders and Apostles 
in Scripture, we have a burden that must be dropped or car¬ 
ried—the burdens of the Special Functions. Nearly all agree 
they are not dropped. Then how are they carried ? It lies between 
Councils and Men. The only Councils of any regularity, actual, 
probable, aye, even possible, are the little local Councils of local 
officers—the very class for and over which the Special Functions 
were designed. (Rule over the local Churches both officers and 
people). If any other Councils of Presbyters existed, let them 
be produced. 

;Since the local are incapacitated, and the others are not 
facts, the other theory is left. But this exclusive process is not 
satisfactory, standing by itself. What if it were reversed ? How¬ 
ever, taken with the facts that can be produced in favor of men 
as the bearers of the burden (for it came through the tunnel) 
the matter stands differently. We do not search in vain for 
men. Lists of names are given by the writers of even the second 
Century. Contemporary writers give us facts. Ignatius tells of 
the extent. If we lug in St. Jerome from the Fourth Century, 
we have reasons, processes, fresh testimony to facts given by 
others, and new facts. Taken all together the harmony is won¬ 
derfully more striking than any alleged discrepancies. 

So, then, we assume the proof of the System, and proceed 
to Judge it: 

It is a monarchical system of course, but of the type where 
the Consent of the governed is as vital as the Authority vested 
in the officers. A constitutional monarchy, is theoretically, simply 
one in which nothing is done without Consent. The arrange¬ 
ments for this often amounts to giving Consent a place of Author¬ 
ity, but that is the working out of a theory amid the difficulties 
of practice. In the Church’s constitution, Consent secured its 
place by right of Elections, and right of Councils. The right of 
these implies the right to judge all things, and to acquiesce or 


270 


Analytics of Church Government 


withhold agreement. The wisdom of gaining Consent before 
Authority acts, is greater than that of acting and then await¬ 
ing the rebuke or agreement of Consent, but it must also be 
remembered that Authority ought to be quick and versatile and 
concentrated, so that if Consent pushes into the preliminaries too 
much, the very purpose of making Authority personal is lost. 
But since some things ought to be done slowly and carefully while 
others rapidly and energetically, a better combination, when right¬ 
ly used, cannot be imagined than this monarchical system, with 
its constitution enveloped by Consent. 

When Consent creates its Executive or Monarch, it is chary 
of grants of power; and where Consent has been allowed to reg* 
ulate the Monarch, it has often tried to leave him but little: 
but, in the Church, those bold grants of power which were traced 
guard Authority because it is weaker than Consent. At the same 
time the place of Consent is also made secure. The Monarchy 
in the Church is therefore a Constitutional Monarchy. 

Furthermore, this right of Council soon brought about a body 
of Canons amounting to a written Constitution. Even if Councils 
have often been used to aggrandize the Bishops, yet they have 
just as often been used to check them. The Metropolitan system 
exalted one, but secured hundreds of restrictions on others, and 
so too the Patriarchal. Even the Pope is not, practically, above 
the Canons. 

The main thing seen in the workings of this system in its 
balancing between Authority and Consent, is its Elasticity. In 
some places the Bishop became almost an autocrat, and in others 
almost a cipher; and generally it has been according to needs, 
and the people. The Romans wanted some one to take the place 
of the Emperor. The Middle Ages needed a mailed hand. But 
in England among the British, and in Ireland in early times, the 
Episcopal rule was hardly a feather. In America to-day, the 
Bishop has been called a “confirming machine. 55 At any rate it 
is a fact, that if Authority vest in the officers, and the people be 
left a full Consent secured by elections and Councils, the strength 
of Government will follow the age and the people, and will cope 
with the needs. All the criticisms of tyranny and weakness can 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


271 


be allowed to pass as true, providing the Elasticity of the System 
be conceded. 

The system of Councils runs throughout. When the Apostles 
established them in the highest place, the sanction for them ex¬ 
tends to all. As an organ of Consent the decree is worth no 
more than its weight. This weight can often be mistaken for 
Authority, but the two must be distinguished fundamentally. 
The extent of territory, the number of members, the dignity and 
degree of office of the same, the authority of names, all these go 
to make up the value of the decree. If the territory represented 
has sent representatives and agrees to abide by the vote, then it 
is bound by its Consent beforehand, but it has often been de¬ 
cided that where not represented, the decree must be accepted 
in order to acquire force. Councils having the power have often 
gone beyond the limits, and carried their point, but in true un¬ 
derstanding, it is Consent and weight that sustains them as Au¬ 
thority. Christ gave no authority to them, and the Functions 
of the Apostles included the highest degree of every power ec¬ 
clesiastical. What they have, they draw out of the regions of 
Consent. Their power of Discipline came when the right of a 
Church to withdraw from Communion with another, and the right 
of a Bishop to excommunicate one of his flock were confused; 
and from the number of Bishops in common agreement, a right 
to excommunicate was inferred. 

This brings us to the problem of Rule over Bishops of which 
we have already seen something. The Master stopped at Apostles. 
There was nothing over them. Bishops, successors to all the 
Functions of Apostles, are single rulers, Monarchs, the sum or 
concentration of their Diocese, and the unit of combination in 
the great whole of the Church. But do they not need rule ? And 
if so, where is the instrument? Now, even Bishops have a power 
of Consent. There is no precise limit to Consent. Canons are 
not wrong instruments of Government. Consent is one of the 
twin forces of Government. The Master carried Authority (the 
grant of His Authority) as far as Apostles, but left a whole 
region above them as a territory for Consent, probably of deliber¬ 
ate purpose. We may say there is an Authority of Consent — 
that which springs from the people; but it is fluctuating, given 


r 


272 


Analytics of Church Government 


and taken away. The Master wished certain things to be definite 
and immovable amid a changing world, and His grant so stands, 
but He also wished leeway left for the adaptation of this very 
Authority to varying needs of men and of time. 

We have seen some of these very heads in a Monarchical sys¬ 
tem exalted, or thrust down in position, to meet changes of the 
world's needs or opinions, and can easily suppose just this elasticity 
secured in part by leaving to other forces the problem of Rule over 
Bishops. In old times by Canon it was ordered that no Bishop 
could leave his Diocese| without Consent -of his Metropolitan. 
That was a stringent rule, surely, but it is not even in the sphere 
of Ministerial Rule. Why cannot common agreement to even 
such a Rule establish that Rule—not as of God, but as of force 
till changed. This we take it to be the method of Rule over 
Bishops. All along the line of parish and diocese, and of pro¬ 
vince and Patriarchate, if these had been formed, came these 
Councils, accomplishing by common rule of Consent, and by the 
principle of power from the people, a vast number of things; and 
in the midst of them, grounded and based on God Himself, an 
Authority that none could deny, and around which the other 
could gather, persisted. 

The Presbyterian Councils claiming to be possessors of God's 
Authority for the Special Functions, are apt in forming their 
actions, to overlook the difference between the decrees which 
spring out of Consent, and those strictly of that Authority. 

The Congregational theory increases this danger. But the 
Papal, by putting Authority above all Consent, is apt, in stamping 
Canons of Consent with the seal of Authority, to prevent their 
repeal and cause crystalization. Very few Canons were made 
to live, and if Creeds did not rest on God’s Word, Councils could 
not keep them alive, either. 

The difference between Rule over Bishops, and Rule over 
Elders and Churches is largely this—-the difference of an Execu¬ 
tive. Above the Bishop, if the Church make one, yet would he be 
but the creature of Consent. Below, God has appointed one. A 
Bishop is not an Authority of the legislative mold, but of the 
executive. He, of course, has powers of Consent, as well as other 
officers, in the region of legislation, but he is essentially an execu- 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


273 


tive. Given the Commandments, the Scriptures, and the Canons 
duly agreed upon, and he comes in the name of God to bind and 
loose by them. The Presbyter is this in the parish, and, if there 
are several, some Council for counsel would be a necessity to avoid 
confusion; but to surrender their executive power to the Council 
would be both wrong and stupid, and that such a Council and not 
they should possess said power by grant of God, is out of the question. 

The Bishop can execute Canons of the higher Councils too, 
within his Diocese, but there is no executive for Rule over Bishops. 
Is there need of one? Consent can create one, but with the 
contingencies of Consent understood. The Diocese can bring 
pressure upon its Bishop; the other Dioceses can also bring pres¬ 
sure; the region of his life is very elevated. But, probably, we 
can see that, if there had been more than one Ruler for Bishops, 
there would have been depression of grades rather than eleva¬ 
tion, and the result the same in the end; and on the supposition 
of only one, we would have a Papacy with no Council above. 

If, now, we have been clear in what we have said all along, 
about the Conciliar system, it ought to be plain that for a Coun 
cil of Bishops to meet and try, by decree of Council, to get more 
Authority than that which by right of their office they have, is 
repugnant to the balance between Authority and Consent, to the 
rights of Consent, and especially to the right limits of Authority. 
It was this that hurt the Conciliar system, and made it an in¬ 
strument of tyranny. It is for this kind of Council that no 
Executive can be found. To execute such a decree in his own 
Diocese, a Bishop could only have his own Authority. A decree 
of any kind of Council of Bishops only, or of mixed orders, or 
of all orders, that was a Council of Consent, placing its appeal 
on the grounds of common consultation, due representation and 
common agreement, would stand in an utterly different light. 
Its so-called Authority is after all Consent. But to try to double 
up the Authority which is from God, by a machinery of Coun¬ 
cil, is to transcend the limit of Authority which God has placed 
by His very grant, and to use machinery of Consent for purposes 
foreign to its nature. Such machinery has no claim to any grant 
of God’s Authority whatsoever. The principle of Association can¬ 
not evolve it, except along lines of Consent. In early days, Coun- 


274 


Analytics of Church Government 


cils of Bishops were for Consent, but later came the effort to 
evolve God’s Authority, in greater degree than possessed by a 
single Bishop, and the Metropolitan became an Executive armed 
with his ordinary Episcopal powers, plus something else. In so 
far as that something else was by Consent, the damage was not 
so great, but soon Consent did not acquiesce, and then came 
tyranny. In so far as that, something else was a power of Con¬ 
sent, he could rightly use it; but in so far as it was claimed to 
be of God, it was usurped. The danger of the latter was there 
all along. On the other hand, the fight of the lower orders of 
the ministry, and of the Laity, to get a place in all Councils is 
historical. It was the antidote of the poison, for, at one step, it 
made the Council seem an instrument of Consent. In the Ameri¬ 
can Church this has gone so far that the House of Bishops can 
do nothing without even the Lay-deputies of the Lower house 
essenting—a plan which admirably secures Consent, but makes 
the Authority which springs out of Consent appear far above that 
which springs out of God’s Authority. Still in his own Diocese 
each Bishop remains the Executor of the Canons. It is here 
most vigorously asseverated that he is more than a “Confirming 
machine. *' 

In Diocesan affairs the conflicts of Authority and Consent, 
have been equally marked by corresponding movements needless 
to go into. Consent in the main, is the stronger power. Popes 
and Constitutions alike fight against Bishops, and very fortu¬ 
nate it is that he is guarded by nothing less than the Authority 
of God. Oppress him they may, rob him of the exercise of his 
Functions they do, but to strip him of his right, is beyond the 
power of man. 

In the parish, the conditions which allowed “Presbyteries,” 
according to that view of Scriptural days, soon passed, for many 
places; and finally plurality of Congregations in Cities changed 
the situation so radically, that a single Presbyter to a single 
Church became the rule. From the first, there is no reason to 
doubt, Councils of Clergy and Laymen often met. Here, too, was 
a battle ground for Authority and Consent, and both have come 
down in a healthy state of conflict to this day. Facilities for 
the contests have varied, but the struggle has never ceased. 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


275 


There can be no doubt that as affording to Authority and 
Consent the chance to grapple, no system can approach the one 
that sees in the Bishop a Monarch, and in Councils Houses of 
Representatives. And if any one thinks he can tell which is the 
dominant idea of the system, it is only necessary to change the 
land or the age, and the picture can be reversed. Such elasticity 
may not seem wise to those wanting the Church to seem like 
the immovable Rock of Ages in a changing world, but to those 
thankful to find it the tossing Ark of Safety amid the floods, 
that element of strength seems the very gift of God. 

The place of Bishops in the legislative system is one of great 
importance from the fact that the Special Functions can be exer¬ 
cised only by them, and that they stand at the head of the units 
which compose th<e Church. They are chief Pastors of each 
Parish as well as the only Diocesan Shepherds. The Consent of 
those in Authority is as vital to harmony as the Consent of those 
under Authority. Councils of Bishops only are indeed but expe¬ 
ditious ways of determining the attitude of Authority, and in¬ 
fluential ways of producing the agreement of Consent, but the 
action of all such Councils needs ratification by the other part of 
every Diocese, as well as its head, in order to deserve to stand. 
In the General Convention of the American Church, two points 
of wisdom are greatly to be commended, which are: that there 
is a House of Bishops to gain weight, and the agreement of 
Authority; and the Consent of all orders and all units is secured 
in advance. But, on the other hand, it is to be remembered that 
the whole Convention is an organ of Consent, and if it practically 
gains the highest place in government, it is in danger of elevating 
the Authority growing out of Consent at the expense of that com¬ 
missioned by God. 

In an age and country like the ones that supply the environ¬ 
ment for such a Council this may pass muster, but not always, 
nor eve^where. The reserved rights of the Diocesan units are 
a most important part of the system. 

There has all through the ages been a longing for Authority 
in controversies of Faith, and it can at a glance be seen that, on 
the basis which we have laid down, there can be none but the 


276 


Analytics of Church Government 


Whole Church in its capacity of Consent. God has not made any 
Authority capable of settling the interpretation of God’s Word, 
but it cannot but be that He is with His Church, and if in all its 
elements there can be agreement, by that very sign we would have 
the assurance of His presence. But controversies of Faith are 
not intended to be settled so quickly as men sometimes wish. 
Instead of seeking a tribunal that can speak over night, and call 
the world, from the rising of the Sun, to the going down thereof, 
to obedience to a decree, we must accustom ourselves to the idea 
that time is a necessary element. We have only to compare the 
settlements made by decree, with those made by time, in order 
to see the worthlessness of the one and the value of the other. 
The decree is only the beginning of the struggle. It is only man’s 
impatience that wants life focused to a word. When Cardinal 
Manning left the Church of England on the ground that it was 
so weak on the side of Authority, he simply showed himself one 
of those impatient spirits that resent the leisure of God, one foolish 
enough to think that even when God is with Authority, the lat¬ 
ter will always hearken to God. God is with His Church, and 
its voice is Consent as well as Authority. We can not help this, 
and a study of events ought to make us thankful that it is so. 

Running over, now, the positions founded by the early chap¬ 
ters, we are able to say that as regards Grace binding us under 
Authority, the position is very natural. Baptism places us as 
by a birth in a new world, the Church, and when there the 
circumstances existing in that world are beyond our control. The 
rights of Consent come to us, and the powers that be, are or¬ 
dained of God, there, as in this world, which we are also bound 
to accept as we find it. The privileges of Consent can easily 
reconcile us to the hardships of subjection. God is with us in 
our part as well as with Authority in its power and responsi¬ 
bility, but we must not forget He is with Authority. The forces 
are too evenly balanced to make us despair, and as God works 
with both, we can safely trust the future. And as for the faults 
of each, those of Consent are as great as those of Authority. 

By binding us in this new world by bonds we cannot break, 
God forces us to play our part. Could we break our way out, 
it would only be to establish new Authority, and could we claim 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


277 


that God was behind that, and was obeyed? Authority of some 
kind can never be dispensed with, though that Authority to 
which God has promised Grace can be abandoned or destroyed, 
for one that we have made ourselves. How much better were 
a Faith that would persuade us and keep us where Grace has 
placed and bound us. 

The Grace of Orders is, as we saw, intimately connected with 
Authority of Orders. The line of Authority is the line of Grace. 
It is a Presence of God certainly. As to its being a character 
of God, that would depend on the reception of, and obedience 
to, that Presence. This Presence of God must always be recog¬ 
nized. The denial that it is followed is the privilege of Consent. 
Tactual succession can assure the line of Presence, for each act 
of Ordination assures the Presence for that one. God can not 
be hurt by allowing His Presence to follow the line of Ordina¬ 
tion; for all the sin in the world has not debarred His Pres¬ 
ence in the world. What men want is, to know the line which 
God recognizes as the one He will follow with His Presence. 
That would mean the offer of Grace, and if accepted, the fact 
of Grace. Any theory supposing the idea that a good man could 
impart God, but a bad man could not, is wide of the mark. The 
process may be said to be, that God chooses a pathway for Him¬ 
self to bless with His Presence, and this pathway is made known 
to men. He has pledged Himself to follow it, and He does. All 
along its line then, God will be found. His Presence can al¬ 
ways at any point, be utilized, and brought into action of a 
ministerial nature. This means, of course, that the basis of 
God’s gift is there for every function of ministry and only needs 
to be stirred up. The Grace of God is there for all exercise of 
Authority. But the action must be determined by the Grace, 
and the Grace will not conform itself to bad action. 

The Presence is always there, and the Grace ever in reach, 
so that the actions may actually have the Grace, and always the 
benefit of the possibility, but conformity to Grace must be the 
pre-requisite of actuality. In other words, the gift of office is the 
gift of Authority to exercise that office, and the benefit of the 
Presence of God, but all the res* depends upon utilization stirring 
up. The ministerial acts of the bad man, however, will not be cut 


278 


Analytics of Church Government 


off from the Presence, by the badness of his character, if his act 
be in accordance with the purpose of the Presence: It is where 
his act, or any officer’s act, is out of line with right, that it can 
not hope to drag Grace into wrong. Certain well defined acts— 
the regular functionings of ministry can always be assumed to 
have Authority and Grace. If the character of the man should 
be a bar, how would any minister be able to show a title, in view 
of the fact that all are sinners. 

All the functions of Ministry are consolidated as to charac¬ 
ter, and divided out as to exercise, in a way that follows dis¬ 
tinctly the laws we traced. Preaching, Teaching, Ministering and 
Ruling, all belong as spheres of action to the ministry of the same 
men. This, both for sake of economy and for sake of dignity, seems 
eminently wise. And, in addition, there is gained the strong guard¬ 
ing against ignorance and lack of force, for the various demands 
of these spheres are so great, that only in a system where men 
could break into the work by self appointment, or in an age or 
region of low standards, would they he likely to be entrusted to 
unequipped men. Then, as to the division of exercise—the em¬ 
ployment of general workers, local workers, and assistants, meets 
rational custom on its own ground, while in more ministerial 
line, the gift, to some, of the Special Functions, to the great mass 
of workers, of the ordinary functions; and to allow without too 
rigid limitation of powers the assisting order to range almost 
anywhere in the region of temporal affairs, and even in the spirit¬ 
ual region, as near the second as the marking of degrees would 
allow, seems to meet all the Historical systems, and especially 
the Jewish, precisely where no possible objection could be urged. 
The High-priesthood of Bishops is as old as the Didache, runs 
through the early literature of Christianity without check or 
hindrance, and rightly understood, should stand without a pro¬ 
test. 

In systems that had bloody sacrifices he was the chief sacri- 
ficer. In a system without bloody sacrifices his functions could 
still be Special without reference to such things. Without any 
reference to the Eucharist, but simply as the bestower of the Gift 
of the Holy Ghost, the Ordainer and Confirmer and Chief Blesser 
of the people (being the chief administrator of Discipline), he 


Discussion of Modern Systems 279 

could be regarded as a chief Minister, even if the word Priest be 
rejected. 

But all the Ministries that ever were, existed to offer to God 
something. The priestly side of things cannot be ruled out, ex¬ 
cept as regards bloody offerings; and since they were the acci¬ 
dent of the office, and the fact of offering the essential, there is 
no reason on their account to disparage a real truth of Nature 
and the Book of God. We are all a royal priesthood, because all 
are offerers as well as ministers. 

The best type of Government presented to our Lord by a 
review of History, for the purpose in His mind—a religious or¬ 
ganization which should be the Kingdom of God, was the Civil 
Government of Moses and Joshua. Congregational assembly, 
Councils, Elders who were Princes, and the single headship were 
its features. It had a balance of Authority and Consent never 
seen elsewhere, except in the Church of Christ. It fell because 
no line of succession for the chief place was provided—which 
condition was doubtless designed on the civil side, just as on the 
other side, a succession was distinctly provided for the religious 
through the line of Aaron. The difficulty with the Jewish civil 
governmental types of Christ’s own day was, that they were but 
parts—Jewish members of a whole that had its head elsewhere. 
So, then, we may look for the Christian Government just as the 
Christian Ministry and the Christian Eeligion, to spring out of 
Judea, with the patterns woven by God to be followed by Christ. 

Lastly—The Essential of Organization is what? 

First of all, we have seen that Government is due to two 
forces, Authority and Consent, working as complementaries to 
each other, and so we can easily say both are essential. But, both 
are always likely to be present de facto, even though one be weak¬ 
ened and one strengthened, according to circumstances. That is 
to say, something posing as Authority and something asserting 
itself as Consent will always be found; and each of these will 
have some degree of strength. What we must be careful about 
is, that the de facto is also de jure. Now in the case of Consent, 
which possesses power not as of gift, but as of born right, there 
is no trouble about the de jure status of that side of things; it 


280 


Analytics of Church Government 


is the de jure aspect of Authority that concerns us.. In all ques¬ 
tions of Authority, the de jure aspect is of great moment. The 
merely de facto may work, when judged by certain standards, 
but when judged by all standards will always be found impotent. 
Manifestly then, it is Essential that Authority be de jure. 

If, now, we see the Essential to be—that, on the side of 
Authority, whatever may pose as Authority be de jure as well as 
de facto, we can pass to discuss as Essential to all, what the par¬ 
ticular Essential of Authority must be. 

If the people of the Church had power to confer Authority, 
then the Essential of Authority would be as easily determined as 
the other powers lying on the side of Consent, and vesting in the 
people, but if God has separately constituted Authority, then we 
must look for some definite feature of the same to stand as its 
Essential. We want a seed, stem or spring, from which all the 
other requisities of full action can grow. An office that can pro¬ 
duce all the rest of the system at any time and in any place, must 
necessarily loom large as an Essential, and, to cut the matter short, 
it would certainly seem that the Apostolic office, the only one 
that Christ Himself took care to bring on the scene- of action, and 
which possessed the ordaining power and the other Special Func¬ 
tions, is the seed of all de jure Authority. 

But this office comes to its dignity of place, as the Essential, 
just because its functions is to ordain, or impart the “Gift.” Hot 
merely because it can appoint subordinates, but because it can give 
those appointed the “Gift,” and thus bring God into the work, it 
takes its place as the Essential. Clearly then, that impartation 
of the Gift is involved, and we cannot ignore the means of im¬ 
partation so intimately connected with the Essential. The im¬ 
partation is certainly Essential to de jure standing, and the means 
of its impartation may itself have its own Essential to be con¬ 
sidered. 

Assuming then, (here at the end of a volume of discussion) 
that the Apostolic office is the Essential, we will look into the 
question whether Ordination is Essential too, and within what 
limits. 

There is no difficulty in seeing that the laying on of hands, 
was the chosen way, and indeed the only way known of imparting 


Discussion of Modern Systems 281 

the “Gift.” Any system that recognizes the Gift (“Stir up the 
Gift”) will recognize Ordination. The difficulty is not there: 
The difficulty comes when we try to see the limits within which 
Ordination is Essential. 

As we saw, there appears to have been in Scriptural days, 
but one Ordination, while in Historical times, we find one for 
each of three offices. We account for this on the ground that 
in Bible times men did not rise into higher grades, but were 
selected for their particular work, and Ordained to the corres¬ 
ponding office. The Historical way was to select men from lower 
grades for a work in the higher. The block that prevents clear 
vision is the possibility of Timothy having been twice ordained, 
and, on the other hand, if only once, then, the use of Presbyters 
acting with St. Paul and the “Prophet” Silas, for an Ordination 
to Apostolic work. 

Several suppositions, some favorable and some adverse to our 
Analysis, can be raised to avoid the difficulty, but they would only 
be suppositions. Yet we can run over them. 

Two Ordinations for Timothy would clear up all, but as much 
as we never see Timothy engaged in the work of an Elder, but 
always the general work and also because the time between the 
departure from Lystra and the letter to the Thessalonians from 
Corinth seems hardly to allow for such a change, we are inclined 
to negative the idea of two. 

If the presence of Presbyters at his one Ordination inclines 
us to dismiss the idea that it was by that rite he became a general 
worker, or Apostle, yet we must remember that the word “Pres¬ 
bytery” is all undefined, and their presence could be from the 
side of Consent, or pure Religiousness even, while St. Paul and 
Silas, the “Prophet,” stood for Authority, and yet all taken to¬ 
gether be called the Presbytery as the only inclusive word for all 
orders. 

There is the idea that, possibly, Ordination admitted to Min¬ 
istry, and something else determined grades, as with the Metho¬ 
dists to-day. But that something else is unknown, although of 
vital importance. It would be on the side of Consent, and not 
of Authority, and so leave open the door for usurpation of the 
higher work. For if the Divine Authority came by Ordination, 


282 


Analytics of Church Government 


and was equally received by all who were Ordained, and only 
human Authority, or Consent (as it amounts to) was needed for 
the particular grade of office, the doors would be indeed wide 
apart to self assertion. 

In the days of Heresy there would have been great trouble. 
Then, too, no office so much needs Divine Authority behind it as 
that which exercises chief powers of Rule and Discipline. 

However, the old Hebrew custom was to Ordain to specific 
office, and in the case of Aaron and his sons, each was dressed in 
the specific robes of his office before consecration. In the Church 
of early days, too, the office was designated, and in the Ordina¬ 
tion of Deacons and Elders in Scripture we catch the same idea. 
If all is not clear in Scripture, we are not surprised, for the 
Scripture seems at absolutely no pains to cover the point. All 
the mentions we have of Ordination are of the most casual nature, 
only enough to show it was done, just that and no more. 

All the scholars that ever lived, have never straightened out 
the case of Timothy. It must stand to catch light as well as 
give light. Our own idea is, that there was only one occasion, 
and that Presbyters engaged with St. Paul and Silas, and that 
the inclusive word “Presbytery” alone could comprehend all ele¬ 
ments present, and so was used by the Apostle in his letter just 
as naturally as in Jewish circles, the same word was used to in¬ 
clude all the grades of the Sanhedrim. With St. Paul and Silas 
present for Authority’s sake, any others (even laymen) could 
have been used as representing Consent and Religion. Ordina¬ 
tion, like legislation, had better combine all elements. 

To sum up now, the great Essential is the “Gift.” It is 
given with Ordination. The Ordainers must include an Apostle, 
and can include the other grades. The Apostolic office and Ordi¬ 
nation therefore are both Essentials. The office is so as the seed 
of the system, and the rite is too clearly identified with the Gift 
to be dispensed with. 

No great attack on Ordination as an essential has ever appear¬ 
ed, comparable to those made on the other. The bodies which 
have system all recognize and use it, so we will not discuss 
further, but pass to consider the question of the effect which 
abandonment of the Apostolic office must have. 


Discussion of Modern Systems 


283 


Consent would not be destroyed, even if hurt. It would be 
Authority that would suffer. Yet, there is an Authority that can 
grow out of Consent. The two contending forces might still 
appear on the field. There would be, however, something lack¬ 
ing to this Authority, and sooner or later, the lack would be¬ 
come manifest. Just because it held “Moses’ seat” and was the 
recognized Authority, whose functions was to wrestle with Con¬ 
sent, God would be with it, but still there would be something 
lacking that in the long run would crop out. God’s processes 
are very long. Man’s substitutes for His institutes must sooner 
or later succumb in a battle that only the things God has fash¬ 
ioned can endure. God may, and probably does, either through 
mercy, or regard for Authority, wherever found and however con¬ 
stituted, stand behind it, to secure to those under it the expected 
benefits, but still the strain is not so much there, as in the in¬ 
grained weakness of man’s best, as compared with God’s best. 
Validity can be weak from other causes, and invalidity be strong 
through compensation, but validity will live and invalidity will 
die. Just as the hope of the world is in lawful marriage, so is 
it also in lawful Ordination; and this is the case not because God 
empties every other plan of vitality, but because only through 
His own best can He win His own hard battle. 

Thus now the very end has been reached. Surely we begun 
at the very beginning, and just as truly as we reached out for 
first principles as guides, so now, having run through every one 
that promised to hold us to the philosophic and religious truth, 
we have come to the extremity of application. 

Our conception of all government, but most essentially of 
Church Government, is, that it must, before all things else, be 
a Pathway for God. It is not designed to govern men for God, 
but as a means for God Himself to govern them. There is no 
question which, if thrown between the millstone of Authority and 
Consent, will not in course of time be ground to a settlement. 

We have only to maintain the one in its Heaven born strength, 
and the other in its Heaven recognized breadth, in order to have 
God’s Government in its most essential principles. And the means 
to this is to provide for Authority, the Episcopate; and for Con¬ 
sent, the Council. Since Consent is quite equal to providing its 


284 


Analytics of Church Government 


own Councils, let the chief care be to guard the Episcopate which 
God gave, so that it neither lose nor gain by any acts of man. 

Finally, it may be said, that the only possible way to this is, 
to recognize its original endowment as of God, and that it per¬ 
sists without break or modification to the end of time. The doc¬ 
trine of Apostolical Succession is the shield and defence of this 
endowment. If that doctrine be taken to warrant claims, it ought 
also to be seen that it warrants restrictions. No Papal powers 
can come by way of Apostolic Succession■, but only the Special 
Functions. 


CHAPTER III 


Gbe problem of Tflnit\> 

It is this Problem which gives life and practicality to any 
discussion in the present day of the matter of Church Govern¬ 
ment. If only the differences that range along this line could 
find adjustment, the impetus toward unity would be too great for 
any resistance likely to occur—at least as between all but one 
of the great Protestant bodies. We know that with the Baptists 
there is yet another barrier, and that of greater separative force 
even than this, and it would be too much to hope that they would 
be drawn towards any center until that principle of their system 
offered no further obstacle. But with Lutherans, Presbyterians, 
Methodists and their kindred of other names, the removal of the 
trouble in the sphere of organization would be followed by great 
desire to yield to those impulses of the Holy Spirit which move 
us all in these days towards a Christ loved unity. 

As to the Anglican Communion, the desire for unity is so 
great that there is serious fear lest there come such a minimizing 
of all things in the sphere of organization, such a disposition to 
treat everything as a product of environments, later than the 
mind of Christ, and referable to heathen and secular conditions 
and patterns, that the real struggle will be to hold herself back 
from a sacrifice of principle. Her genius is so far from the Ital¬ 
ian, and her spirit is so close to thorough-going Protestanism, 
that her heart is unquestionably all for any reasonable comprom¬ 
ise. Side by side, in Reformation days, German, French and 
English Protestants fought till the great battle was won, and the 
succeeding internal differences presented few elements of gratifi¬ 
cation to that one of the three allies which must lose most 
through disagreement. When the Church of England checked 
her progress towards the goal gained by the others, she did so 
at the cost of all those great bodies that flew from her borders. 
The love of freedom and self-government, and desire for deliver- 
ence from personal authority is immensely strong with all Eng¬ 
lish natures, and now there comes an age whose glory it is to 


286 


Analytics of Church Government 


upset all things but the doctrine of Impulse. The bitterness of 
old controverses and warfares is gone, and her old allies appear 
to her so softened and bettered by the kindly atmosphere of 
easy going years that she is earnestly trying to persuade herself 
that they are altogether lovely in all essential respects. View¬ 
points have some advantages over convictions, and especially in 
an age that seeks for them; so Anglicans have climbed to a 
broad plateau whence at many a view-point they see that dur¬ 
ing all these centuries of their own hard labors these courageous 
old allies have grown and prospered and softened, and so they 
are saying, “If the Lord Himself had not been on their side, we 
had swallowed them up quick when we were so wrathfully dis¬ 
pleased at them/’ Oh! the congency of the argument of life 
and growth! Again, too, while the Oxford Movement has rolled 
an immense wave in the sea of Anglican feelings, its results have 
been rather higher beach-marks in matters* of Ritual than a 
deepening of channels of Doctrine. The broadness of the age 
has counteracted its tendencies in doctrinal directions, while the 
culture of the age has helped the drift towards high ritual. Its 
successes have extended practices, originating long after Christ, 
while doing little for really Primitive and Apostolic teaching. 
Lightfoot and Gore, Hatch and Wordsworth have abandoned so 
many of the old contentions in the matter of the Ministry as 
almost to have created a movement away from high views of the 
Church’s Organization, and towards the old position of Whately. 
In other words, the inclination of the Anglican Communion is 
tremendously towards, (and there is even danger lest she should 
follow) the lead of scholars (not Gore, of course) who derive the 
Episcopate from ephemeral conditions rather than from the mind 
of Christ, and practically sacrifice the doctrine of Apostolic Suc¬ 
cession. This temper and tendency may pass. The inertia of 
large bodies is very great. But, certainly there is no field to-day 
where Broad-Church tendencies have so much sway as in that con¬ 
cerning Organization. 

The sphere of Organization is itself a seemingly minor field, 
as compared, for instance, with that of the sphere of Faith, or of 
Conduct. If men believe rightly, and above all, do rightly, many 
a person will not care one iota under what system those persons 


The Problem of Unity 


287 


prefer to live. And, in fact, the most rigid minded man of all 
can hardly in this age rate variations in organization as he does 
variations in the other spheres. Even though there be then some 
Essential of Organization, yet the very sphere of organization, is 
that too Essential ? 

It is very easy to think just in an a 'priori way that Christ 
created a society and left that society to settle its own interna] 
structure after He had Himself given it a first start. In a 
broad age fond of Evolution, (as we all are now) it is exceedingly 
winsome, this tracing of prophetical forms and preliminary steps 
amid strangely powerful molds, towards issues that justify every¬ 
thing that eventuates, and makes one thing as logical and legal 
as another. And, on the other hand, it is far more difficult to 
bind all the future by hard and fast holding to the doctrine that 
this Society was given an axis of crystalization, and would em¬ 
phatically be judged with reference to it. Yet, as a matter of 
fact, the issue is right there. The Apostolate is, or is not, the 
axis of crystalization. If it is, then the Society is not free (and 
consequently right) in any form into which it might develope. 
If it is not, then the Society is foot-loose, except only in so far 
as the general principles of Christ’s religion bear upon such a 
matter as organization. 

If the Anglican Communion were to sit down to confer over 
the stand to be taken with regard to Unity, there would be, as 
of old, two schools, one of which would contend that the Episco¬ 
pate is the Apostolate modified by the lapse of personal powers, 
by geographical necessities, and by conciliar agreements, and the 
other of which would see in it an after product of Evolution, justi¬ 
fied by early, wide-spread, continuous, and emphatic legislation of 
the Society, which was made by Christ competent to settle its or¬ 
ganization. To the first school, the Church-Government of all the 
Protestant bodies with which Union is desired, would lack co-ordi¬ 
nation with the very axis of Church-Government. To the other, 
it would only lack homogeniety with Church Legislation. 

To the first, the spiritual power and fine success of these 
bodies would only tend to show that their near approach to co¬ 
ordination with the axis secured such a result; or that their faith 
and energy made splendid use of grace received through all the 


288 


Analytics of Church Government 


channels kept open; or that God has very large recognition for 
de facto conditions, yet without exalting them to just the plane of 
the de jure side of things. To the other, the success of the op¬ 
posing system might even weigh as much as to shake its faith in 
the wisdom of the early Christian Society as sufficient to legislate 
for modern times. 

Now the breadth and even sweetness of this latter view may 
be very manifest, but it is hardly possible that the quality of 
steadfastness can be attributed, but on the other hand, although 
the first view gives promise of steadfastness in maintaining the 
Historic Episcopate it may be well asked what promise is there 
for Unity? 

In as much as this whole book has been written on the sub¬ 
ject of the Apostolate being the axis of organization, it will 
now be in order to discuss the problem of unity from the stand¬ 
point of that position. 

First, then, let us get at just exactly the crux of the whole 
matter. The question of the Grace of Orders need not enter. 
“Tactual Succession” has been a term that has played a part in¬ 
deed, but in as much as the “Touch” in ordination is merely a 
sign, it should be so treated in the mind. Grace does not flow 
through fingers any more than soul-cleansing through water. 

The sneers at the idea of Tactual Succession all seem to be 
based on something like a conception as of a current flowing through 
a conduit made of men and fingers. But every one understands 
how a man rising from his knees after ordination can, by that 
very sign, believe that he has been given an authority he never 
had before. And if there be no other way to receive authority 
than that, there must be a succession of such proceedings reach¬ 
ing back to the original organizer of the series. No one knows 
how to dispense with ordination. All systems have it, save those 
that have no outward ordinances. Now, if God he behind each 
ordination to make valid the authority, that is all that is requisite, 
let anyone add what they please on other grounds. But the gift 
of authority carries with it the gift of Grace. Nor is it necessary 
to think of one supply of Authority given at first and brought to 
the present day by a conduit. We can leave to God his own ways, 
satisfied if only the outward sign or laying on of hands testify 


The Problem of Unity 


289 


to the fact of inward Grace, then and there received. Ordination 
is not a means of tapping a former supply, hut a going to a pres¬ 
ent God for Authority for a present man, and God pledging tne 
same through His own officer, and with a well known and symboli¬ 
cal sign. So, too, any break in the series is not an interruption 
of a stream, but marks a place where a man got his Authority 
through a false agent, or if from a true agent, yet in an irregu¬ 
lar way. He can never surely assert God to be behind the one, 
or consenting to the other. Our trust in ordination by a true 
agent rests in God’s pledge, and nothing in the world else. 

(Now all the organized bodies act on the above principles ex¬ 
cept in so far as see in the whole Church, or even in parts more 
or less large, a power to remedy any break and begin de novo a 
series of true agents (a wholesome looking theory, but one which 
allows John Smith to get a congregation of less than fifty souls 
to make him the starting point for many things). It is on this 
theory that the Presbyterians, who for themselves, hold firmly to 
rules providing for Succession, recognize the ministries of bodies 
who confessedly violate the principle. The doctrine of the restora¬ 
tive power of the Church or its parts threatens Succession terri¬ 
bly, but does not interfere with the doctrine of the Grace of 
Orders unless Grace be conceived to lie in a lake, as it were, at 
the beginning, and to be brought down to our day through a 
conduit. 

But if the doctrine of the Grace of Orders finds enough recog¬ 
nition from all for practical Unity, is there anything else that we 
can eliminate? 

Possibly an opportunity to draw nearer to some bodies exists 
along the line—the apportionment of Authority. 

The Presbyterian theory is that Authority was given to the 
whole Church to be exercised by the Ministry, and it might be 
that a clear distinction between Authority that comes from above 
and that which comes from below might enable them to meet 
Anglicans in a view' that would satisfy both sides. There is need 
that a Ministry should rest immediately upon God in at least 
some respects. The inherent power of the people is so great that 
there can be no sufficient resistant, nothing out of which can 
arise a balancing power, unless God be in the background of sup- 


290 


Analytics of Church Government 


port for this. Government, as has been showed, needs two strong 
opposites, out of whose clashings emerges the course of events, 
according to God’s providence. Now, the Presbyterians in saying 
that power is from above, and in assigning the exercise of it to 
the Ministry, show their purpose to assert God as back of minis¬ 
terial acts; and in asserting that the power was given to the 
whole Church show their desire to guard, in theory at least, 
Consent. Their use of Councils is directly to the same point; 
while the fact that those Councils are composed of Officers, points 
again to their desire to emphasize Authority. The Anglican too, 
even though he locates Authority itself, and not just the exercise 
of it in the Ministry, yet makes such a large use of councils 
(except where restrained by the civil powers that be), and so 
exalts the powers of Consent, that he meets his brethren upon 
what might be called common ground. Their systems it is true 
differ, but both are animated to accomplish a recognition just 
and right of the two forces. With the Presbyterian, the Council 
is supreme, but in the Council, Elders are the power. With Angli¬ 
cans, councils are far more representative of the whole Church., 
but the authority of the officers is individual or “several” and 
not “joint;” and the “joint” powers grow out of the “several,” 
except in so far as they are mere delegates of the people (Author¬ 
ity from Consent). 

However, from these considerations it would appear that for 
a pactical unity the difficulties could be made to disappear, and 
that the grounds for agreement are great. 

The innate feeling that has governed both Presbyterians and 
Episcopalians towards an effort thus to emphasize and make place 
for the dual powers of Authority and Consent, has also per¬ 
vaded nearly all the bodies separated from each other in the 
general tendencies of post-Reformation times. Their systems, more 
or less open to criticism, all aim to accomplish the same balance. 

The real crux cannot be removed by adjustment. It is not 
the Grace of Orders, and it is not disagreement as to the neces¬ 
sity of both Authority and Consent, although provisions for the 
same may vary in different systems. It is simply the existence 
of an office above that of Presbyters endowed with powers of 
Rule over Presbyters. (There are powers belonging to that of- 


The Problem of Unity 


291 


fice besides this, but it is sufficient to mention this one). It 
is the question as to the seat of Authority in its highest manifesta¬ 
tion. 

It is necessary to remark that since the problem of Unity is 
to be considered from the standpoint that Authority must rest 
on God, it would be quite out of place to bring forward an office 
out of Consent, as would be the case if the Episcopate arose as 
an after-thought, and a product of the Church’s legislation or 
usurpation. That kind of Authority can be manufactured to-day 
as well as at any other time. The kind to be predicated is the 
kind based on the only true base for Ministerial office. 

Of course, with such a crux as this, the issue becomes a 
square, up and down, clear cut one: and it is well that it is so. 
It plainly involves the abandonment of the Episcopate by one 
side, or the taking it by the other. There is room for some 
compromise, but it would not reach the whole way. That com¬ 
promise would be as follows: 

All parties believe that there i3 authority of some sort in 
every order of the Church, and some sort also in congregations, 
in councils, both of laymen and officers, and of officers alone, and 
in individual officers. If all these elements were combined, author¬ 
ity of all kinds and degrees would be brought together. If 
they all united in ordinations, those so ordained must necessarily 
receive authority. If they became the sole source of ordinations 
for the future, the cause of division would be removed. The 
difficulty would be that Bishops must take part, and those or¬ 
dained must be ordained to the order of Bishops, in order to 
satisfy the Anglican side. The other side might not object to 
Bishops taking part, but if the men ordained then ranked as Bish¬ 
ops, the so-called compromise would be wholly one-sided. 

There is no possible help for the issue. It cannot be avoided. 

The strange part of it all is, that the field of the controversy 
will, in the future, be History rather than Scripture. Since Light- 
foot and Gore and Wordsworth, the Anglican argument from 
History has weakened. The fourth century Jerome who used to 
be pooh-poohed is taken now as an authority on some first century 
affairs in a most surprising way. But more than this, it is evi¬ 
dent that the opponents of the Anglicans will prefer the historical 


292 


Analytics of Church Government 


field. In Scripture the Elders were ruled over to the end of 
Scripture. The Apostles ruled over them. Men ruled over them. 
If there ever came a time when they were not ruled over, it 
must have been in historical times. History will therefore be 
ransacked to find a time when they were free to rule over them¬ 
selves in or out of councils. Scripture presents but one council 
and Scripture covers many, many years. To see councils, we must 
go to History. The ablest analysis of that one council cannot 
extract light on the desired point. The most extensive argument 
from analogy cannot build a. system out of it. The Apostolic 
element in its membership differentiates it radically from every¬ 
thing else. In fact the limited use of councils in Scripture weak¬ 
ens all argument that they were a regular part of the machinery 
of government. It is History which exalts councils. Then, too, 
it is History alone which can trace the changes in the work and 
powers of that order of men which, it is claimed, passed from an 
Apostolate into an Episcopate. 

Our strife in the historical field will not be as bitter. If 
once it be agreed as positively settled that there were in Scripture 
times functions of Ministry (the Special Functions) which Eld¬ 
ers could not “severally” possess, and which could not lapse, 
and we go to History to see what became of them, surely that is 
not a question beyond the reach of amicable settlement. 

Above all, let it be borne in mind that deviations from God's 
appointed ways does not set Him angrily to deprive of Grace, nor 
is His chosen way His only possible way, but each and every 
way has its own capabilities, and God will use it at its fullest 
value, and probably even increase that value in order that His 
loved ones be not deprived. There is great capacity in some of 
these post-Refbrmation ways to all human judgment, but .let 
those who believe they have God's own chosen way abide in ir 
faithfully and charitably. 


The End. 



m 19 190/ 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 










































































































































































